Are you an absolutist or a relativist?
It was a victory for Judge DeWeese when he was allowed to keep a poster of the 10 commandments in his courtroom. The poster is a little different in that it offers the opposite view.
As the ACLJ reported:
"A U.S. District Court sitting in Cleveland has formally dismissed a motion brought by the ACLU of Ohio to hold Richland County Judge James DeWeese in contempt of court for displaying a poster entitled 'Philosophies of Law in Conflict' in his Mansfield courtroom. The ACLU took issue withJudge DeWeese's display of the poster - which compares and contrasts the Ten Commandments with Seven Humanist Principles - and charged that it violated a 2002 injunction barring him from displaying a poster consisting solely of the Ten Commandments under the caption 'Rule of Law.' But U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen O'Malley, the same judge who issued the 2002 injunction, disagreed and further described the ACLU's attempt to use the 2002 injunction in this fashion as 'misplaced.'"
1. There is a conflict of legal and moral philosophies raging in the United States. The conflict is between moral relativism and moral absolutism. We are moving toward moral relativism.
2. All law is legislated morality. The only question is whose morality. Because all morality is based on faith, there is no such thing as religious neutrality in law or morality.
3. Ultimately there are only two views. Either God is the final authority, and we acknowledge His unchanging standards of behavior. Or man is the final authority, and standards of behavior change at the whim of individuals or societies. Here are the examples.
Moral Absolutes: The Ten Commandments
I. am the Lord your God...
I. You shall have no other gods before Me.
II. You shall not make for yourself and idol.
III. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
IV. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
V. Honor your father and mother.
VI. You shall not murder.
VII. You shall not commit adultery.
VIII. You shall not steal.
IX. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
X. You shall not covet anything that is your neighbor's.
Moral Relatives: Humanist Precepts
I. The universe is self-existent and not created. Man is a product of cosmic accidents, and there is nothing higher than man. (Humanist Manifesto I)
II. Ethics depend on the person and the situation. Ethics need no religious or ideological justification. (Humanist Manifesto I)
III. There is no absolute truth. What's true for you may not be true for me. (Humanist John Dewey)
IV. The meaning of law evolves. "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." (Us. Sup. Ct. Chief Justice Chas. Hughes)
V. "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life." (Planned Parenthood vs. Casey)
VI. Pesonal autonomy is a higher good than responsibility to your neighbor or obedience to fixed moral duties. (Humanist Manifesto II)
VII. Quality-of-life decisions justify assisting the death of a fetus, defective infant, profoundly disabled or terminally ill person. (Princeton U. Prof. Perter Singer)
4. The cases passing through this courtroom demonstrate we are paying a high cost in increased crime and other social ills for moving from moral absolutism to moral relativism since the mid 20th century. Our founders saw the necessity of moral absolutes. President John Adams said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." The Declaration of Independence acknowledge God as Creator, Lawgiver, "Supreme Judge of the World," and the One who providentially superintends the affairs of men. Ohio's Constitution aknowledges Almighty God as the source of our freedom. I join the Founders in personally acknowledging the importance of Almighty God's fixed moral standards for restoring the moral fabric of this nation.
18 comments:
It is such a shame when subtle minds take refuge in empty absolutes. It is understood that it is our nature (God given if you will) that we have a conscience. With this conscience guided by wisdom derived from texts, sacred or otherwise (the New Testament, the Koran, the US Constitution, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The Old Testament, the Hindu Scriptures, Laws and philosophies from all the corners of the globe, etc.), we make our rules, our mores and and our laws. Our judgments should be made with empathy and compassion. Let no man, or woman, who believes in the Ten commandments claim to speak for God for surely this is a form of blasphemy. Let them only say that they believe they are inspired. Then they must justify to the rest of us why this or that law or judgement is for the benefit of us all. The explanation cannot be that they know what God intends and what he means. I implore those who think they know the mind of God to have some humility.
Anonymous: you are making it too easy.
When you say "It is such a shame when subtle minds take refuge in empty absolutes" you are providing a classic self-refuting argument. The problem with your statement is that it is an absolute truth-claim which is contrary to what it affirms, much like saying "no truth can be known" or "be skeptical of those who claim truth." This principle of self-falsification, is based in the law of non-contradiction since self-refuting statements are contradictory. In truth, each sentence in your comment is written to be taken as absolute fact. Or, are they mere relative musings that are themselves devoid of any sense?
Step 1: Read a logic book. I would highly recommend:
Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990). Come, let us reason : An introduction to logical thinking. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.
With respect you are mistaken. When I wrote: "It is such a shame when subtle minds take refuge in empty absolutes" this is clearly not a claim to absolute truth. Therefore there is no contradiction. I merely provided a commentary.
"Ultimately", the article says," there are only two views. Either God is the final authority, and we acknowledge His unchanging standards of behavior. Or man is the final authority, and standards of behavior change at the whim of individuals or societies."
Now that is an absolutist claim to truth!
However, it is evidently empty of meaning - and that is again my commentary. How can a person understand the absolute knowledge of God's unchanging standards of behavior? Apart from its impossibility there is the absurdity of setting this unity of a single God, in opposition to the collective of mankind. The Ten Commandments may to God be absolute but for mere mortals to act on these commandments will always require interpretation. The interpretation can only be done at one moment in history. Subsequently even that interpretation will itself require reinterpretation. For what in this age are we to understand by 'other gods' or 'Idols'? How now, in these times, do we remember the 'Sabbath day'? Certainly not as it was done 200O years ago.
Thanks for your comment. You start by saying "with respect." As if it was a moral absolute that one ought to be respectful. Is "being respectful" an absolute moral value? Are goodness, gentleness, or humility moral values? Are greed or malice vices?
Is your first sentence "With respect, you are mistaken" a truth claim? See, the truth is one can't make one sentence without tripping over the law of non-contradiction. I'm either mistaken or I'm not. You're making a truth claim. Now it's time to back it up.
Saying Judge DeWeese's statement is "evidently empty of meaning" and then saying your sentence is itself just a commentary, not a truth claim, is a cop out. It either is or isn't evident that it is empty of meaning. Instead, one should say, it is absolutely devoid of meaning and here are my arguments against it. Otherwise one would be dodging the point and backpedaling without offering anything to back up her claims and she wouldn't want people to think she is behaving cowardly. Yes, cowardice is a vice. Yes, universally.
At any rate, let's get to your two arguments. One, that a person cannot comprehend God's absolute moral standards and two, that if they did they would be subject to interpretation over time from person to person.
In response to your first point. God can be known by looking outwardly at the world around us (in a physical sense), and inwardly at the moral law that is in our hearts by self-introspection. This is available to all human beings. Now the problem for relativists is that moral laws don't appear out of nothingness or mere matter, yet they exist universally. The only origin of moral law that we know about is from our own consciousness. Therefore, moral laws must originate from a conscious moral law giver. Because entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily, we prefer one moral law giver over many, and therefore there must be one moral law giver - one God with absolute moral values.
Your second argument about interpretation is just another cop out. What part of "do not commit adultery" need interpreting? What part of "it is absolutely wrong to tear a toddler's body apart for the fun of it" is subject to interpretation? I know three languages and trust me, interpretation has never been an obstacle. The fact is we are not talking about whether or not it can be interpreted differently, we are talking about whether or not it is true. Observing a day of rest was beneficial then and it is true now. The fact that it is carried out under different circumstances does nothing to negate its true benefit.
People worshipping different Gods doesn't make any of them true. I could worship my dog and say she is God and believe it with all my heart but that would not necessarily be true. Truth is indifferent to what we believe. It simply is. Respect is either a virtue or it is not.
You seem angry. Although that's just an observation. It might also be true, but only you can know.
I said: "With respect you are mistaken". I accept this is a truth claim and I repeat you are again mistaken. The use of the word 'respect' is a matter of politeness. It is a convention.
You ask: "Is 'being respectful' an absolute moral value? Are goodness, gentleness, or humility moral values? Are greed or malice vices?"
Of course being respectful is not an absolute moral value. Gentleness is not I think a value in the same way that humility is. Gentleness need not imply a virtue. Humility already carries within its meaning a positive human attribute. Can one be truly wickedly humble? Is it not an oxymoron? In literature this can be used to good effect. I speak, of course, as your humble servant, sir.
Greed and malice likewise are understood to carry with them negative attributes.
A person who has been without food for a long time and then eats voraciously may or may not be greedy. Malice is a term to describe bad intent?
If I say somebody behaved with well-intentioned malice. This is meaningless. It can neither be true or untrue. It is empty of meaning. I could say it is evidently empty of meaning. Someone else of course could then ask me to back up that claim.
You say "Cowardice is a vice". Of course it is. It is the opposite of courage which is a virtue. It is not 'universally' so. It is so by definition.
I never said that a person could not comprehend, or more to the point be aware of, God's absolute moral standards. I am fairly convinced that you do for that is why you state with such vehemence: What part of "do not commit adultery" needs interpreting? "What part of "it is absolutely wrong to tear a toddler's body apart for the fun of it" is subject to interpretation?"
I feel sorry for your certainty but suspect it is no sorrow to you however it would be to me.
I have never claimed that there are no true values. Only that in any given circumstance we have to interpret how best to serve them.
It is sad that you believe that it is only the sense of an absolute morality that prevents someone from tearing a toddler's body apart for the fun of it.
Are you an absolutist or a relativist? That is the question.
Ah! Simple, straight forward questions. Am I white or Black? Are men the equal of women? When is a child no longer a child?
Am I absolutist or relativist? I am certain that no one can be a 100% one or the other. So, in that I am an absolutist. As to whether there is or could be some sentient being capable of divining the rights and wrongs in all issues of moral judgement with absolute certainty, that is beyond me to know for certain. That there are people who need to think there is and others who are incapable of doing so seems evident.
Maybe we can agree that love is good and hate and cruelty bad. Maybe we can agree that life, this life, is short and for many full of injustice and pain and that to do what we can to improve things is good. Maybe we can also agree that a good deed done without awareness or understanding simply at the behest of an authority is not as good as one done of an assenting free will. Those who think they have some understanding of what they believe are God's commandments should explain them in human terms to others. Simply to say: "but it is written" or "this requires no interpretation, no commentary, no footnotes" explain nothing.
Judge DeWeese makes the point that either God exists and there is an absolute moral standard, or God does not exist and moral standards are up to or relative to each individuals (Jeffrey Dahmers and Hitlers included). Can you see how the latter cannot be true and God and an absolute standard must therefore exist? Are you an agnostic or is God's existence a fact for you?
God exists. What God wants is good. It is an absolute moral standard. How do we know what God wants? The Bible? Old Testament or New? I know that there is no point even thinking of going beyond the Mid East and more particularly the Holy Land for guidance here. I think I know what the god judge thinks!
Riddle me this.
"Thou shalt not kill." And in San Francisco there was an earthquake and Max Fast, a garment worker, tells of what he saw:
"When the fire caught the Windsor Hotel at Fifth and Market Streets
there were three men on the roof, and it was impossible to get them
down. Rather than see the crazed men fall in with the roof and be
roasted alive the military officer directed his men to shoot them, which they did in the presence of 5,000 people.".
Right or wrong? God knows?
Maybe we had no right to build such tall buildings in the first place? Did God send an earthquake as a punishment for man's hubris? If so urban USA (and those that fashion themselves on these practices) are in trouble.
What do you think of Babel towers? Are you for them or against them?
I would amicably suggest reading the Bible as a historical document describing the various covenants God has with his people over time. It's actually good reading. I started with Ecclesiates and John. I was not always a believer, especially growing up as a child and teenager in Europe where skepticism and relativism was rampant.
Judging is actually a good thing if done right as there must be punishment for those who do evil. Just seems right doesn't it? Being made in God's image which is the only thing that makes us equal, we know deep inside that concept of right and wrong. We want justice. The concept of justice cannot emerge from mere matter colliding together. Right and fair justice can only originate from a righful judge. I'm not concerned whether it is the God the Bible describes or not. I'm more interested about the attributes of God which is that he must be the absolute moral law giver, that he is fair and righteous.
Regarding your comment about the earthquake and the killing of the three men on the roof (I haven't had time to verify it thoroughly but it appears genuine and is a good illustration).
First of all, let's be fair to God, "You shall not murder" is what he says, not "You shall not kill." There is a huge difference. We can get into that later if you want.
Your illustration is good because it brings up two issues. Higher moral duty decisions that supercede moral absolutes, and secondly "the problem of evil."
An example to illustrate the first point: A doctor comes to the scene of a woman who just had a mild heart attack. She is laying there in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. She asks the doctor "Did I have a heart attack?" His oath says he must be truthful with his patients. However, if he tells her she had a heart attack he might precipitate another attack, so he chooses to tell her that everything is going to be fine instead. This decision to not tell the whole truth to her supercedes his oath because the doctor's higher moral duty is to keep the woman alive.
Now, we don't know much about the policemen belief systems, but we know that they felt compassion for the men on the roof whose fate was sealed. They either jump, burn alive or we end their lives in order to avoid a long agonizing death. They chose the best option. This was not senseless murder, it was killing out of compassion. The fact that there was a crowd of 5,000 actually demonstrates that their actions were justified. Armed with a gun, anyone in the crowd might have made the same decision. Compassion is yet another moral value that seems to exist without cause in a world without God. Compassion is indeed a moral character trait of God. We "ought to" be compassionate. Ought to's are recalcitrant facts to a naturalism worldview.
The "problem of evil" which deals with why is there evil in a world created by a supposed good God, takes a bit longer to explain, so I'll write a post about it later. Earthquakes could possibly originate from evil rather than God though. I don't know, just a thought.
Oh dear. You are beginning to seem a little folksy now. I think I preferred it when you appeared angry. I am referring to your amicable invitation to bible study with the added advice that I should do so as history. I like that because we all know that with history there is never just one interpretation.
But thanks for the book recommendation but I have a lot of books on the go at the moment.
"Judging is actually a good thing if done right as there must be punishment for those who do evil."
Unfortunately we are not particularly good in that department. Neither in the judging or the punishments, but I don't disagree with the principle. However we need to strive to improve our judicial systems, we need better trained advocates, we need the rule of law, etc. etc. and it's best if beliefs about motives and possible possessions of the soul are left strictly to one side. What must be sought is evidence properly gathered , sifted and weighed. We have a long way to go to get this right, at least in so far as establishing with as little doubt as possible guilt or innocence. If non-human forces want to exercise justice by lightning or heart attack that's great but if it's being administered by humans then I'd rather it be under the rule of secular law than by any inspired zealot claiming divine knowledge,inspiration and the right for moral retribution.
You are right of course about the commandment being about murder and not killing. Of course the killing in San Francisco that I mentioned was quite plainly murder. It would have been by the laws of the time and would also be now. Premeditated cold-blooded murder of completely innocent people. I agree with you though that we have to recognize an extraordinary situation. The moral absolute of "you shall not murder" needs to be tempered by human justice. Interesting.
I don't like your doctor example There are too many hypothetical claims.
I wouldn't qualify the behavior of the policemen in your example as premeditated or cold-blooded or committing murder.
Surely it is legally murder. However I am not a lawyer. I am pretty sure that a state of emergency was declared and looters in the city were also being shot. Maybe normal law was suspended. Nonetheless the moral dilemma remains. If possible there should have been a trial. What efforts were made to ensure that the situation was absolutely hopeless. Had any of the victims jumped to their deaths? It was reported that the reason given by the troopers was that they couldn't stand to watch these people either being burnt alive or jumping to their death. It is very complex and I don't have all the facts.
My point in the context of our discussion is that simply stating that the commandment not to murder is absolute doesn't help us in its application. It isn't obvious and there will always be degrees. The distinction between murder and killing is a legal one. The application of the law should be subtle and the circumstances and even the current moral climate will be relevant. I don't think there has ever been a human society which condoned illegal killing i.e. murder, but the definition of what constitutes murder is subject to change. I don't challenge your right to believe that the injunction not to murder is god given and absolute. However judgement as to whether a murder has occurred and of what degree and what punishment fits the crime is in the hands of human beings.
Being legal does not make an act morally right or wrong. Abortion may be legal but may not be morally right. You are correct, the military quickly took charge of the city and many other killings (justified or not) happened to prevent looting and to restore order.
In the account, the sentence preceding the quote you provided helps clarify the situation: "Others were shot to save them from the horror of being burned alive."
That act of killing here might actually be seen as morally right.
Judge DeWeese's 10 commandments sign says "do not murder" but when you think of biblical moral values you have to weigh the circumstances, like a judge would, to see if the absolute "you shall not murder" applies in that situation or not.
For example, it is wrong to lie (that remains an absolute), but it is not wrong to lie to a Nazi death squad looking to kill a Jew hiding in your cellar. Under the circumstances, choosing to lie is better than choosing to allow the innocent Jew to die. I am not saying it is alright to lie for me but not for you - that would be relativism. In those exact circumstances it is always better to lie (for you, me or anyone else) in order to honor a higher moral value which is to protect an innocent life from being murdered. In the San Francisco earthquake example it is better to end the suffering of the human beings about to burn alive in order to preserve their human dignity and prevent unnecessary harm. I agree this is debatable. Were there other alternatives they didn't think about? Seems there were not or you hope some of the 5000 witnesses would have spoken up.
The State carries the sword and carries out the punishment. That's a God ordained deal and that's a good thing. However, in an imperfect world, justice is carried out more incompetently in some countries than in others. The fact that earthly justice is imperfect does nothing to negate that "you shall not murder" is an absolute moral truth. It is when we see that justice is not carried out justly that we think "it ought not be this way." Since ought to's don't emerge out of matter there has to be an absolute just judge, otherwise moral truths differ from person to person and life is essentially meaningless.
We agree that as you say: "...in an imperfect world, justice is carried out more incompetently in some countries than in others. The fact that earthly justice is imperfect does nothing to negate that 'you shall not murder' is an absolute moral truth."
From what you also say it is evident that you have both an emotional need for, and are convinced of the existence of, a God, and that this God is the Judeo-Christian God, and in particular that the way to know this God is through the Christian religion. I am not sure within which denomination but I would guess it is an evangelical one.
I am happy to accept that the injunction not to murder is an absolute but I do not admit any logical necessity for this to be underpinned by belief in a God. An atheist can say that murder is absolutely wrong and ground it in the morality of evolved community values. For the atheist there is no final arbiter of the truth of this claim, but it would be just silly to suggest that this then renders the atheist amoral and incapable of ethical behavior. (Note that it isn't just non-religious atheists that would be categorized in this way but also many Buddhists, Jains and some Hindus.) Some people have justified murder influenced by a superiority complex which makes them reduce others to a status of being less significant, less human, than others. This has occurred in people with strong religious convictions and with none.
I have no problem if theists choose to believe or need to believe in the necessity for a deity to underpin their morality. I will accept that such a God will be capable of giving an absolute verdict in, say, the case of the San Francisco killings which we have discussed. Clearly no human being can do that. They can only make the best judgement they can. This will change with time. It is interesting to note in this regard that, if I am not mistaken, figures for the number of deaths that occurred in the earthquake are not accurate because the deaths of Chinese people were not thought worth recording. This would not happen nowadays in the USA. To take another example, judgments made by people in relation to rape and murder are very different today in the USA than they were in some US States, say, in the 1950s or less contentiously, say, in apartheid South Africa.
Given that we can only do our best and that not everyone will understand or interpret biblical references the same way there is a need to justify our legal systems and judgments in non-religious secular terms as happens in the USA and most developed Western countries. In addition it is important to have a system of trying to tease out the truth through investigation, advocacy etc. There is also, for there to be a reduction in the risk of a miscarriage of justice, a need to make legal judgments on serious issues subject to appeal.
For any who feel that such legal niceties can be dispensed with on the grounds that because God can distinguish the good from the bad then so can they, I would humbly say, in the words of Oliver Cromwell:
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
The US judicial system has strong Judeo-Christian roots. After all the Declaration of Independence (a copy of which can be found at www.supremecourtus.gov) says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The only way people are equal is found in Genesis 1:26-27. Because other than being made in God's image, some people are anything but equal. Some are skinny some are fat, some tall, some dark skinned, some more intelligent than others, etc. The only reason we are equal is that we are human beings made in God's image.
I agree with you, rape is wrong whether it is being recorded as such or not, wherever and whenever it is committed. And Chinese people are human beings and their deaths matter as much as other citizens.
An atheist saying "morality evolved out of community values" does not make it necessarily true. It isn't. In fact one just has to read the Nazi Guttenberg trials to see that morality is grounded in a law above the law. Claiming that their community values was why they did what they did, did not seem to help them.
Being made in the image of God, all human beings have the moral law written in their heart and should not be regarded as lesser human beings because of their web of beliefs.
Interesting conversation. You must be in Europe. UK perhaps?
I am sure my mode of expression gave away where I live and was born which is in the UK although I have lived in France as well.
We have had some considerable agreement and whilst I am an atheist and you a believer we have more in common than what has been written in the bible. We have most of our DNA in common and much else besides. We also have the fact that we are probably still both alive at the moment that you read this.
I wish you well.
Thanks and goodbye.
Anonymous, I will let you go with this. There is no need to reply. I enjoyed our conversation from across the pond.
You were willing to accept the San Francisco fire story you submitted as accurate without much questioning of its veracity. Afterall, it was witnessed by 5,000 bystanders who would have refuted the account were it not true. Why not take some time this summer to consider the account of witnesses in the most accurate piece of ancient literature we have to date when it says: "This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses" (Acts 2:32) "and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses" (Acts 3:15)?
Other passages mention witnessing these facts (Acts 1:22; Acts 3:15; Acts 5:32; Acts 10:39).
In one instance 3,000 bystanders became believers as they had witnessed those facts themselves.
It would seem like picking and choosing historical facts if you thought that the San Francisco account was accurate but the Biblical account isn't. Would it not? There is no other book that is more important to read this summer by the way if these witness accounts are true, as God would have entered the very thing he created in order that you may know him.
"Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.' With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, 'Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.' Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day." (Acts 2:38-41)
Perhaps we may meet in Heaven.
Post a Comment