May 31, 2004

Re: Everett (moral Relativism)
speedcorn

Everett,

First let me start by looking at the example you used of you hitting me. Here is some of what you wrote:

"For instance, let's assume you and I have been having an argument, and during the course of this argument, you insult me. Let's further assume that I am angered by this insult to the point that I feel that it would be right of me to exact retribution in the form of physical retaliation up to the point of actually you. Obviously, you would feel that this is wrong, but why should this matter to me if my feelings, not yours, determine what is right for me?"

My main problem with this example is that even in your agitated state I believe you would still know that it was wrong to hit me. Instead, you have become so enraged that you just don't care anymore that it is wrong to hit me. We don't need any outside organization to tell you that its wrong. I for one believe that I am cognizant enough to make the dinstinction on my own.

Secondly, you wrote:

"What makes this even more interesting you don't completely reject objective right and wrong while advocating this moral relativism because you quite clearly condemn the idea of the Church (and religions in general) telling people "how to live and how to think", despite the fact that the religious authorities guilty of perpetrating such a heinous act undoubtedly felt they were doing the right thing. In other words, you're advocating "moral relativism for me but not for thee.""

I disagree entirely with the assertion that the people making decisions for the Church undoubtedly believe that they are doing the right thing. Too often the focus becomes saving the Church's reputation. This happened with the recent child abuse scandals (as you mentioned). The officials in the Church were so concerned with preserving the image of the Church and the numbers of churchgoers that they were willing to put further children at risk by moving known child molesters into new (and unsuspecting) parishes. Do you honestly believe that the people covering this up thought they were doing the right thing? And if so, for whom did they believe they were doing it?

Thirdly:

"An institution that has spent nearly 2,000 years discerning fundamental tenets of both faith and morality is far more relaible in its discernment of right and wrong than any one man because it is the cumulative work of many minds over a great period of time and is constantly able to bring there resources to bear to scrutinize and refine its positions, admitting those things that bear fruit and discarding those that do not."

Again, it often takes the Church hundreds of years to admit they were wrong in their previous beliefs becuase they have their reputations to worry about. The result is that they are always clinging to antiquated notions of what is right rather than proactively refining their belief system. Examples of this include the (Catholic) church's stances on homosexuality, birth control, and abortion. It wasn't until 1992 that the Church admitted its treatment of Galileo (circa 1600) was wrong.

Fourthly:

"It is a balance difficult to achieve, and it is indeed often not achieved, though too often the imbalance tilts not in favoir of the Church, but in favor of the individual. Certainly, when the Church overstpes its place, it is more noticeable for obvious reasons, but it is more often the case that the individual oversteps his place because it is easier for him to do so without notice."

You don't really make it clear what you mean by the last fragment in the above paragraph so there is very little I can say. What I will say is that the Church in and of itself has no rights. Individuals do! In fact, individuals have many rights today that the Catholic church would take away if it were in their power to do so. A woman's right to chose when to bear children is a fundamental human right. The freedom of sexual preference is a fundamental human right. For more please consult the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Finally, although I know you (Everett) are not suggesting otherwise, we all have the right to read whatever we please. It wasn't until the 1960's that the Catholic Church decided it was no longer in its best interests to maintain a list of books that should be banned from society. And yes, I do believe they did it because it was in the Church's best interests, not in the churchgoers best interests. That's part of the problem.

Speedcorn

PS: The forum isn't exactly overflowing with Tolkien related posts these days so I don't think anyone has to worry about having to continue debates via email.

PPS: Just out of curiousity, Everett (or anyone else), do you think you would ever read Pullman's books? If not, why? They really are awesome stories even if you ignore the anti-religious overtones. As an athiest I have read books such as the Chronicles of Narnia even though they are obviously pro-Christian. I like being exposed to different viewpoints.