Okay, here me out on this one...but I think in one respect, moral relativism might be a good thing. Check it out:
If someone says what is good for me may not be good for you...what does that leave? That leaves a gap that needs to be filled by a choice...you have to choose what is good for you.
Anyone can do the right, just, moral thing if they are forced...if there's no temptation or option to do otherwise. So moral relativism means you have to work harder and earn that moral character...you have to make it your own.
I related it to love. See, one of the questions people always ask when it comes to humanity and God is "why". Why this, or why that? Why did God create us with free will if He knew that we'd screw up and be sinners and He'd need to send His Son to save us if He wanted us back? I think it comes down to choice. If we didn't have free will, we wouldn't have choice...and there's something powerful about choice. Loving God or loving anyone or anything really in true love requires choice...it requires choosing to give of yourself freely and completely.
So, back to moral relativism...it makes living a moral life more sincere to have to choose the right path.
1 week ago
Posts
2 Comments:
That was awsome Linds
[=
we were talking about moralrelativism in bible last smemester. I think it.s totally awsome that we have choice becuase i get that being forced to Love someone isn.t sincear at all. But sice were given choice we just have to decide for ourselves wich choices we make are the rightoness. i really liked this thing and the background is cool!<3love you Lidnsey
Linds, I think I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree about what you're calling moral relativism. I think moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal right or wrong. I think moral relativism is the idea that right and wrong are fully dependent on the social or cultural circumstances. Unitarian Universalists espouse moral relativism because it gives the option for everyone to have their own god, and their own individual, existential reality.
I think what you're getting at about God giving us our own paths and our own free will is a similar concept, but the result is something very different because with yours there is still only one truth, one God in the end. When you say, "If someone says what is good for me may not be good for you," you are talking about choice of action right? But the moral relativist when s/he uses those words is talking about the meaning of and the intent behind those actions. You are saying that God gives us the ability to find the right path right? but for the moral relativist, there is no right path -- it's whatever they choose it to be, not what God chooses it to be.
Does that make any sense?
Post a Comment