Moral Relativity

I believe in God, and therefore, in an absolute truth. However, I think the truth is more abstract than people who would accuse me of moral relativism might claim. I don't presume to completely understand God, though I do claim to have a loving relationship with Him. I do believe that God has revealed a "moral map" to the world through Jesus. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people, even many who claim to be Christians, have not accepted the directions of this map, the primary of which is love.

Love can be manifested in infinite ways. What I may think is an act of love, another may think is a sin. Hence, we have "moral relativism." Both parties may claim to be acting in accordance with God. An extreme moral relativist might claim that there is no absolute truth. However, someone that believes in an absolute truth, such as myself, can also have questions about what is right and wrong. I think even some people that lambast the concept of moral relativism practice it. For example, I've heard conservative Christians fundamentally preach the adherence to the commandment "thouh shalt not kill." Yet, through interpretations of the commandment and concepts such as "just war theory", killing an "enemy" in a "war" is condoned under certain circumstances. The fact that the act of killing can be a sin in one circumstance and in accordance with God's law in another circumstance is an example of moral relativism. The very concept of moral relativism is that the righteousness of actions depend upon circumstances. I admit, I adhere to this definition of moral relativism, and I am proud to do so. I think it leads me to a less judgmental and more loving understanding of those around me, which I believe to be the ultimate law of God.

Comments

Sean Meade said…
Paul certainly allowed 'wiggle room' on some things. he said if we don't do something in faith, it's sin for us. one example is 'special days'. if it's a special day to you (eg, Sunday, Easter), you should observe it. if it's not, then you don't have to. but you also have to be considerate of the other person, with special days or not.

it all amounts to a mutual responsibility ethic that can be boiled down to love, but it can be parsed, too ;-)
7:20 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The agony of victory....a.k.a. picking my jaw up off the floor

Allright. I've now had nearly 24 hours (although its taken me a couple of days to complete this post) to calm down, reflect upon and digest the improbable gut wrenching game yesterday in which the heavily favored Colts lost to the Steelers 21-18. I wrote last year of not being as emotionally attached to the Steelers as I have been in the past. I wrote last week of how I thought that I might be spending too much valuable time following the Steelers, especially since I have absolutely no control over the outcome of their games. Let me just say this: yesterday's game was probably in the top five emotionally draining, and ultimately gratifying, experiences of my life. Ouside of my wedding and the birth of my two sons, I can't remember being as nervous, deflated, joyful, stunned and exhilirated as I was yesterday----all withing about a ten minute stretch of seemingly neverending time! What could have been a devestating loss to live with in the offseason (and, forever, for Jerome
Read more

"The Axis of Evil and the Doctrine of Preemption Three Years On"

Jerod and I attended a lecture by Brookings Institution fellow Michael O'Hanlon last night at Park University in Parkville, MO. The lecture was part of the Jerzy Hauptmann Distinguished Guest Lecture series. As a Park University M.B.A. alum, I received an invitation to the 13th annual lecture in the series. I like going to events like this, especially since I was interested in the content of this particular lecture, of which the title was the title of this post. Dr. O'Hanlon described himself as a Sam Nunn Democrat at the beginning of the lecture. It's always difficult to prevent political feeling from entering into objective analysis, and I don't know how you measure the "objectiveness" of analysis, but I feel that most Brookings scholars are at least "fair", and Dr. O'Hanlon was no exception. His analysis of the doctrine of preemption was focused on the effectiveness of the doctrine, as opposed to any moral righteousness or implications of the
Read more

Removing a password that was created in a previous version from an Access 2007 database

Earlier this week I was banging my head against the wall trying to figure out how to remove a password from an Access 2007 database (file extension .accdb). The database was created in a previous version of access and subsequently "upgraded" to the Access 2007 format. I believe some type of a wizard was used to perform the "upgrade." The security model is evidently different in Access 2007 than in previous versions. It doesn't appear that you can set/unset database passwords. Instead, in Access 2007, there is an option to Encrypt with Password. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be logically similar to the earlier version password architecture, but there was no way that I could find to easily remove the password that had been created in the earlier version when using the Access 2007 interface. Access security has always been confusing to me, and I need to take the time someday to understand how the security model is supposed to work in Access 2007. An
Read more