Boomer to Millennials: the more you ascribe to relativism, the easier you will be to be manipulated by advertisers, propagandists, and sociopaths of all sorts.
"Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong even if everybody is wrong. Right is right even if nobody is right." Ven. Fulton J Sheen.
Funny, I was just wondering if he lives near me. Let's pray God gives us more people like him -- and really people of God's full heart and mind -- wherever we live.
Brian, I have RARELY heard a discussion on this subject that is as clear, incisive and understandable as this! I wish that, besides these videos on your channel, you could also publish a blog in which you could advance your points and engage others in unpacking viewpoints. Please, keep up the good work! Fr. Martin Farrell, op
Oh my gosh... I was LITERALLY researching relativism tonight and purchasing books on amazon, and I am discerning applying to Franciscan for theology LOL
This may be helpful to you then: CD Talk: Relativism: Do you know how it is affecting you? --By Chris Stefanick Can Society Determine Right and Wrong? www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/can-society-determine-right-and-wrong (Video in this one) What to Say to Someone Who Doesn’t Believe in Moral Absolutes www.catholic.com/video/what-to-say-to-a-son-who-doesnt-believe-in-moral-absolutes More: www.catholic.com/search?q=Is%20morality%20objective%20and%20how%20do%20we%20know%3F This one is a doc w/ a bit of reading: www.catholic.com/misc/ytmt-study-guide.pdf I know this is a lot but I figured I'd give it to you anyway since you mentioned it. I was debating abortion with some friends and the question of objective morality came up. I have been researching it as well and this is what I found. With relativism you don't have to dig deep before you find the bottom and see that it is not logical. Most of it can be phrased in a question that is self refuting. Relativism: Relativist: There is no absolute truth. Response: Are you absolutely sure? The answer to that question would be no, you can't be because if that was true then the one absolute truth would be that there is no absolute truth. That makes no sense and follows no logic. (Intellectual/any) Relativism: It is true for everybody that nothing is true for everybody. This statement contradicts itself and cannot be true as it does not follow logic. Partial Relativism: Everything that is scientifically verifiable is true, everything else is not/subjective. Is this statement scientifically verifiable? No, it’s not. Philosophical questions are known to be true because when you apply it to real life, it is true, it works. You can’t take this statement, chop it up, and put it underneath a microscope and see if it is true ;D Moral relativism: Every person/society/culture has to himself the right to create his own ideology and to enforce it with all of the energy to which he is capable So terrorists (twin towers), Hitler, the holocaust, slavery are all justifiable because they have that right to create for themselves the own ideology to which they enforced with all of their power. No! That is ridiculous! Possible objection: Well they should not have pushed his/their moral ideology on anyone else Answer: That statement is contradicting itself because it is saying that someone should or should not do while saying that no one should be able to say what someone should and should not do. Fundamentally, if moral truth is not absolute, but only relative, well then we couldn’t accuse anybody of ANY wrongdoing. Why? Because the individual would be the final arbiter of what is good and what is bad. So ultimately, moral relativism undermines morality completely, and that’s something that’s so absurd, I hope anyone who believes in any kind of moral relativism will come to see that, “Well, I might be a moral relativist in my thinking, but in practice I’m not a moral relativist.” If there is no objective morality, then morality does not actually exist and neither does justice. Sorry this was so long...I hope it's helpful.
I have been told "Your morals are wrong, restrictive and harmful..." many times. I have yet to hear of a moral standard which isn't restrictive. I've heard people claim their chosen immorality doesn't harm anyone, I've also seen these same people complain when the consequences of their immoral choices catches up to them. Immorality is never harmless. And moral relativism is simply a new shape of amorality, which is even more destructive. The consequences may not be immediately seen or felt, but there will always be consequences.
I am an atheist and sincerely think moral relativism is a cancer. There is a Truth and a False as much as there is a Right and a Wrong. And I appreciate any human being, religious or not, to strive for reaching the Truth and the Right.
@User 57 Actually, the OP was saying that the atheist was making an objective statement about morality, which is inconsistent indeed with 'there are no moral absolutes.' To believe in the existence of morality at all is inconsistent with relativism is the point. Anything less than objective morality is just "things happen in the world."
Hey brother, just want to say thanks for the time you put into your channel. Your videos are thought provoking and challenging. I appreciate that. Blessing to you from Phoenix, AZ
Relativism IS THE RULE OF THE MOB in the realm of Human Reason, Intellect and Faith! WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE the One True Faith, and SHALL FIGHT AGAINST relativism, political correctness, pluralism of opinion, and the poison of HUMANISM at its microcosm! Men of the Faith, HOah! DeusVult! SemperFidelis!
Saying "Dictatorship of Relativism" reminds me of whenever someone tells you, "That's just your opinion." It's both an easy excuse to dismiss someone, a rod to thwak them on the head with (because how dare you dissuade them from something), and a mask for bad behavior. Not that there's NO relativity, there's just nowhere near as much people try to go on about.
Thanks for these precious thoughts brother . I recenlty thought about another aspect of the problematic you're telling us about: Relativists always look for a "better" moral than the natural ethical law, but they never consider there's a really BIG trouble if you start thinking about WORSE moral systems in terms of relativism . After all, why stoning people schould be a problem ? Why pedophily couldn't be simply an individual choice, like killing innocents, lying, burning animals alive, destroying the earth for profit or just for fun ? If you agree to the relativism, the fact is that you have nothing to oppose to someone who thinks these horrors are attractive to him: you think killing innocents is bad, Another one think it's good, you got you're opinion, he got his, so why schould society listen to your old moral and not to his personal new one ? If morality is not based on SACRED beliefs, you have to treat your beliefs just in the same value of any others ones, than majority can impose its morals laws ... You see what I mean in the present context ? What can you oppose to sharia if you're morality is just an opinion ? Nothing . What can you oppose to the economic law of the most rich, when he wants to strangle solidarity and innocence ? Nothing . What can you argue to oppose to the stoning of women anywhere in the world even here on your own street ? Nothing . If someone pretend his culture and religion is aztec, what are you borring he about interdiction to kill people ? His beliefs is as good as yours, and as good as any canibal's one, what could we oppose to it ? Nothing . I think that's the worse part of moral relativism: any moral is as good as yours, so the fact is that the worse one will impose itself to all . This is a really serious thread to the whole civilization, culture or humanity at all . That's juste a matter of time to see the worse and the strongest impose its rule to all . Be blessed bro , thanks for your really interesting work here on TH-cam .
In your heart of hearts you already know right from wrong. If you never question yourself then you avoid the truth. Still the truth and morality exists no matter what you think.
Perhaps St Paul is correct: “(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)” Romans 2:14-15 NIV
Thanks for all these videos, Brian. You're a true blue defender of the faith in my book! Have you by chance ever watched any of the debates featuring William Lane Craig here on TH-cam? He often incorporates the apparent reality of objective moral values and duties into his proofs and arguments. I find it amusing how often the atheists he debates want to affirm the objectivity of their own morality when claiming to have the moral high ground by way of their own "enlightened" secular ethics, but are unable to because they also deny the existence of God, which such a system must necessarily be grounded in. The part about the "tyranny" of relativism reminds me of the similar tyranny of private interpretation of scripture. When there are thousands of ways individuals may interpret any individual verse, there also follow thousands of denominations based on those differenes of opinion. By subjugating oneself to the authority of the Church, one is ironically freed from the tyranny of needing to become one's own theologian. Nothing is quite as liberating as the truth! John 8:31 So Jesus said to those who believed in him, “If you obey my teaching, you are really my disciples; you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
It really does hurt the poor the most. A poor person who is seeking employment will have to agree to violate his or her religious beliefs as all the corporate conglomerates who hire most minimum wage workers have made it policy to support immorality and impose it on their workers....just not workplace theft, of course. As always, 3 Hail Marys for you, Brian.
One relativist trick to watch out for is the use of a mostly subjective reconstructed history as the source of an ideal and the framing of traditional conventions as deviations from this so-called historical origin.
@@moveaxebx sadly a friend of mine said to me "relativism is true exactly because it contradicts itself" and he's a chemist. He's a fucking scientist. I'm scared
Excellent video. Perhaps more pressing, though: when are you going to take those Les Pauls off the wall and play Achilles Last Stand, and In My Time of Dying, with pinch harmonics, exclusively?
Thank you Brian for your insight and hard work. Do you happen to have a written version of this video so that I can sit down and read it and make notes to myself? Also, have you considered publishing a book of your video transcripts?
Exactly!!! Just hours after you posted this, I was discussing the topic of prostitution and abortion with my boyfriend -we both are Catholic. And I always came to the fact that someone who is in favor of those things is basically saying "Despite you may find this wrong, I find it good and positive. Therefore don't do it... I will" Of course, the point is more complicated specially if we take into account people's background. For instance, my boyfriend is from Europe whereas I am from Mexico. And those topics can be seen and therefore adressed in a different and more complicated way. But I agree. Nowadays a lot of things are about relativism. However, how do we adrees this when someone is in a leadership position? "He did wrong... She did wrong. They must pay/fix it...." Why don't we do the same in our daily lives? With our neighbors? But specially with our selfs? Greetings from Mexico!
i had an argument in a class there was me and another theist argueing against an atheist who said how can you believe god if he allows evil i replied what are you defining as evil. to witch they said well i guess it is just my opinion. then i said if i believe that murder is right and you think it is wrong how how do you justify that your opinion is right. they had no answer. then said to believe in morals beyond opinion they cannot be a construct of humans as one opinion against another on a subjective issue cannot be valued over another. theretofore there must be a transcendent moral law giver with the knowledge and authority to give moral laws. the best match to this law giver is god
I think of it more as a diversion tactic. It's misery loves company, with enough money and free time to support it. Most Relativists tend to be very indulgent with their perceived tragedy, mollycoddling their booboos like children. They want it as the centre of their being and not have morality judging it, nothing that might mirror negatively their thin-skinned ego over a swelled amorphous body of self-shed tears. Detached from humanity in self-defeating safety bubbles they lash out and want to deflate human qualities. So they hide behind a thin layer of stoic aloofness, verbosity and a double-bluff. They have appeal due to people seeing merit in the usual vacuous virtues of Relativism, Objectivism & Materialism: Productivity, Efficiency, Progress.
Nietzsche, Bernard Shaw, Byron, are delicious as decadence and imperial purple prose, but like most people who gorge themselves on comfort food, or better comfort confectionery it's empty calories and not very wholesome for the mind, not the body in this case.
1:02 - "the evidence for this claim is that because propel don't always agree about what is right and wrong, there must not actually be a right and wrong. But just because there can be multiple answers to a question, it doesn't mean that there is no answer to the question." Multiple answers imply that there is not only one answer. When talking about morality, people assert that there is only one correct moral judgement of a given action. The fact that people disagree about the correct moral judgment for a given action is evidence that there is not one correct. If you substitute the word 'objective' for 'correct', then that disagreement is evidence of no objective moral standards. 1:40 - "we ought to acknowledge that truth as well as morality are generally self-evident and then we should set ourselves to the hard work of to discover it." If moral standards are self evident, why would there be hard work to discover what they are? The statement contradicts itself.
Multiple answers do not imply that there is no answer for the very reason I argued in the video. Multiple answers to a math question are inevitable, as I demonstrated. That doesn't mean there is no correct answer. It just means humans are fallible. I did not say that the moral standard is self evident. I specifically said that morality, in general, is self evident. The fact that morality exists is self-evident by the relentless fixation of human beings upon it. But to understand what the correct answers are requires effort as it does truth. To turn around and say that there is no correct answer is to immediately concede an inescapable, incoherent, and blatant contradiction since that IS an answer to the question. You do not answer a question by saying there is no answer without conceding that there is an answer (because you offered one).
@@BrianHoldsworth "That doesn't mean there is no correct answer. It just means humans are fallible. " and specifically in terms of moral standards, how do we know that there is one correct answer, other than by assertion? people claim to know that a given moral standard is objectively true, but they cannot show how they know that. "I did not say that the moral standard is self evident. I specifically said that morality, in general, is self evident. " fair enough. correction accepted. morality exists as a concept. but when it gets to specifics, then the disagreement starts. "To turn around and say that there is no correct answer is to immediately concede an inescapable, incoherent, and blatant contradiction since that IS an answer to the question." I think the language used here is obscuring the issue. Your video was about relativism. As I understand the word, that means there is no objective, fixed standard for moral judgments of actions; such judgements are relative to the individual culture, and thus it is based on subjective standards. So it's not that I am asserting that there is 'no answer' to the question of what moral judgement to make about a given action,. It's that I recognize my judgement is relative to the culture I grew up in. Someone who grew up in a different culture might make a different moral judgement of the same action. Different moral judgements of the same action could be explained as 'humans being fallible' or it could be explained as there being no objective standard in the first place. I favor the latter explanation as that is what we observe: people make different moral judgements about the same action. if you favor the former explanation, what evidence can you offer that there are objective moral standards?
Great thinking, rational and infused with Catholicity. The only problem is that in order to see things this way, to folllw your reasoning, a person needs to be smart and/or have some background in philosophy. Most people are (or have) neither, sad to say. I’m 66 and am content to observe and practice my faith. If it comes to trying to influence, I try it mainly on my grandchildren. For others I just pray. I’m very glad youngsters with vision and intelligence like yourself are making videos like this one. Thank you!
Well formulated and presented, Mr Holdsworth. If the average RE Director in the average parish had half your moxie we'd fix the hole in the hull of the church in one generation! Then the people would stop jumping overboard.
Great contribution, thanks Brian. Frederick Nietzsche's madman threw down his lamp in the market and said, I came too early! Atheists are not called out on this and consequently get away with it!
If we do a thought experiment and assume you are correct that morality is objective, upon what standard are we basing this morality? Which book of the Bible? Which Testament? Which version of Christianity, Catholic, Protestant, something else? Which religious document or tradition laying out the foundations of morality should governments use to create moral laws? If you are saying we should use the Bible, which version? Which translation? Whose interpretation? When verses or interpretations clash, do we go with Tradition? Catholic Tradition? Something else? What if folks don't agree with your Catholic take on morality? What happens when Catholics become a minority in a nation state and some other religion or none at all takes primacy? Will you change your argument? What about separation of Church and State? I found this argument to be too general. Specific issues and cases would be helpful.
As a Catholic, I would say it is based on both faith and reason, but the Greco-Roman age used just reason and were able to get pretty far. You first admit that there is an objective morality, then you do your best to observe behaviours and their outcomes and apply reason accordingly. Or, you could just use the foundation that was laid out for us by the ancients and the medievals who took up their standard and continue to build from there. After all, they built the greatest civilization ever known to humanity and we are still coasting off of their momentum.
@@BrianHoldsworth Can you give specifics of whom you are arguing against? Your rhetorical shadow boxing is generally too broad, I think, to have the sharp effect you want it to. Can you give examples of what prodded you to make this video? I'm just wondering what specific targets you are disputing here. I think it would inform the discussion better. Now, I'm no fan of 'cancel culture,' or modern capitalistic consumerism, internet flaming, or the extreme left. I am confining my response to the realm of how morality is ported over into a government's laws. Individuals will always, under any moral system, objective or otherwise, push the boundaries. That's a given. I assume you agree. I don't think there's too many serious relativistic philosophers arguing that morality should be a free for all. Most serious relativists are arguing that a social contract style of morality could easily replace what we have now. Many would argue that's what we already have. An example from the Catholic realm would be the birth control debate. Most Catholics just ignore the Church's teaching. So the majority of Catholics are already using a relativistic system of morality. Brian, this is a very, very tough question. I definitely understand the desire to have a prescribed morality writ large in the stars. Again, let's leave aside the question of whether there IS an objective morality. I'm open be being convinced on that during some other discussion. But I'm more interested for this discussion in the practical matters of instituting one's will into the government... My strongest criticism is how the human mind will have access to this objective morality; any method one might devise to access objective truth will be perceived as subjective. And any method to access this objective truth will most likely be religious or strongly infused with religious viewpoints; You'll have to demonstrate why Catholic morality should inform ALL morality to the point of underpinning society. I believe you may make the argument that Catholic morality already DOES underpin society, and to a point, that is partially correct, but it is getting peeled away bit by bit. THAT is what upsets you, am I right? Theocracy is your goal, perhaps? I know you're from Canada but America, as an example, is not supposed to be a religious country. I'd argue that even the most devout and conservative catholics should be fighting tooth and nail to keep religion OUT of government. Both religion and government suffer when the two mix. What happens when the tables flip and your religion is not the one in charge of the government any longer? As for the Greeks... that's bronze Age Morality. They were pleasure lovers; their sexual teachings were incompatible with Christianity. Remember the Greeks were great thinkers but they espoused pagan morality - you want to base objective truth on that? The Romans? I'd be wary of basing morality on the Romans. They had worse sexual mores than the Greeks. You mention medievals. Which Medievals? Catholic? or Muslim? One could argue the Ottoman empire at its height was better, more advanced, more tolerant. You mention the greatest civilization - Was Greek Civilization the greatest? What 'objective' standard are you basing that on? In any case, if that be true, it might not be that impressive since civilization has not been around very long. Let's reassess that in another 50,000 years. You mention Natural Law. I see it as problematic, especially the sexual teachings. Can we never learn anything or progress, or are we shackled by the past? We could talk about natural law for days or weeks. Natural law is based on faulty science and baseless assumptions. Lastly, if - and that is a big if - objective morality exists, that does not necessarily mean god created it or is responsible for it.
It seems ironic to me when I see some of our culture's most politically powerful moral relativists calling for "the rule of law" as they vie with each other for position within our political landscape. I see this quite often here in the U.S.
It’s kind of insane to think that there’s no universal absolute right and wrong. Once I asked an Athiest a simple question because he stated that right and wrong are “human contructs” so I asked: “Is rape objectively wrong past, present and future.” He didn’t answer the question...
Hey Brian, that was very well said but there a couple more threads to pull on here. If you have your version of goodness and truth and I have my version of goodness and truth and there is no agreed upon objective moral truth between us, the only two options left are barbarism (might makes right) or nhialism (there is no truth). Thank goodness that most people are not total moral relativist and "that reality trumps", to quote Peter Kreeft. This is why CS Lewis in Mere Christianity starts with Right and Wrong in the first chapter as a proof for the existence of God, which piviots on mans desire for perfect justice. Ultimately this is why John identifies Christ as the Logos as all truth is grounded in him as creator of all, space, time and reality. Also since Christ is incarnated as a man, he reveals man to man, or as St. John Paul II says, he gives man an athropology, revealing to man what God intended man to be. Speaking of antropology, I highly recommend Catholic appologist Frank Sheed's book called "Society and Sanity".
@User 57 I believe that there is an objective morality and of course, an objective truth. What I mean by that is it doesn't change based off of our feelings, it is part of reality whether you believe it or not. Kind of like if I said, "I feel like the earth is flat" if you could go into outer space and look at the earth, would reality have had morphed into my feelings? Would the earth be flat? Well, of course not. `Morality is the same. I think that morality is another kind of truth and we can discover and learn what is true based off of what we know to be true. It can be debated and there can be an ultimate truth to the subject. I think that my religion is the closest to the truth, because it seems to hold up against everything the world throws at it. Morality is an objective thing but religion explains why. Another way to say it is: Morality and other objective truths are part of reality; they are a natural law (I think am using that correctly) and I believe that God created the natural laws. This is why I don't believe in relativism: Relativist: There is no absolute truth. Answer: Are you absolutely sure? The answer to that question would be no, you can't be because if that was true then the one absolute truth would be that there is no absolute truth. That makes no sense and follows no logic. (Intellectual) Relativism: It is true for everybody that nothing is true for everybody. This statement contradicts itself and cannot be true as it does not follow logic. Partial Relativism: Everything that is scientifically verifiable is true, everything else is not/subjective. Is this statement scientifically verifiable? No, it’s not. Philosophical questions are known to be true because when you apply it to real life, it is true, it works. Can’t take this statement, chop it up and put it underneath a microscope and see if it is true ;D Moral relativism: Every person/society/culture has to himself the right to create his own ideology and to enforce it with all of the energy to which he is capable So terrorists (twin towers), Hitler, slavery are all justifiable because they have that right to create for themselves the own ideology to which they enforced with all of their power. No! That is ridiculous! Possible objection: Well they should not have pushed his/their moral ideology on anyone else Answer: That statement is contradicting itself because it is saying that someone should or should not do while saying that no one should be able to say what someone should and should not do Fundamentally, if moral truth is not absolute, but only relative, well then we couldn’t accuse anybody of ANY wrongdoing. Why? Because the individual would be the final arbiter of what is good and what is bad. So ultimately, moral relativism undermines morality completely, and that’s something that’s so absurd, I hope you or anyone who believes in any kind of moral relativism will come to see that, “Well, I might be a moral relativist in my thinking, but in practice I’m not a moral relativist.”
@User 57 I guess I don't see how something like the holocaust could be ever justifiable or something just "neutral". I understand that you may personally not agree with it, but that's kind of useless if all moral choices, opinions, and systems are equal. If they are all equal then you can't even defend yourself or stop them from because they have an equally as important or "moral" system as you. You can't impose your morality on them. I don't see how genocide is something just fine to do. It would have to be if allowed if someone believes it is right and good for them, or if a nation does--and they have. If you want to joke about barbarism, fine, but even if that's not wrong how could you say that about the holocaust? What about the twin towers and suicide bombers? What about slavery? And torture? Rape? Child abuse? They are all neutral, neither right or wrong, just as your subjective philosophy demands. No one had a right to stop the holocaust, it was a neutral event. No one should have stopped a plane from crashing into the pentagon on 9/11? because the terrorists actions are neutral? There is not ultimate right or wrong, no ultimate ought or ought not to, everything is equal? So the police have no right to stop anyone? And any other country can't defend itself from attack? I don't want to sound cocky or argumentative, just blunt. I don't understand yet how this seems to pan out into something that makes sense.
@User 57 ... If you assume everything is subjective then you should probably stop putting forth arguments, because by putting forth arguments you have to assume there is truth by the very words you are using which have been previously defined.
@User 57 Would this correctly express what you are saying? "There is no right and wrong. Only power and those too weak to seek it." Why exactly do you think there is no objective morality? Do you have a reason to not believe in it? It may be better to start with why you think it can't be or isn't instead of why it is.
Jonah Cane morality is subjective when comes from arbitrary chosen god and cannot be in any sense objective. Absolute morality sounds slightly more correct but still too risky to argue for.
Babha G what if God was the grounding for morality? I think our moral intuition simply tells us some things are wrong and others are right. Why should I distrust my moral intuition? I trust that my five senses are telling me the external world exist. Why can’t I trust that my moral intuition is telling me the truth that moral facts exist?
Jonah Kane are you trying to win the debate or are you trying to be correct...??? Dont know. Always trust your intuition. Follow your senses. If you have sense of empathy thats all you need. Trust yourself. Good luck.
Jonah Kane just a small advise. Try to avoid influence of dishonest charlatans who will force you to accept a set of beliefs. Dont read subjective opinions from Christian books from 1944. You can do better. All the best.
Relativism: Relativist: There is no absolute truth. Me: Are you absolutely sure? The answer to that question would be no, you can't be because if that was true then the one absolute truth would be that there is no absolute truth. That makes no sense and follows no logic. (Intellectual) Relativism: It is true for everybody that nothing is true for everybody. This statement contradicts itself and cannot be true as it does not follow logic. Partial Relativism: Everything that is scientifically verifiable is true, everything else is not/subjective. Is this statement scientifically verifiable? No, it’s not. Philosophical questions are known to be true because when you apply it to real life, it is true, it works. You can’t take this statement, chop it up, and put it underneath a microscope and see if it is true ;D Moral relativism: Every person/society/culture has to himself the right to create his own ideology and to enforce it with all of the energy to which he is capable So terrorists (twin towers), Hitler, slavery are all justifiable because they have that right to create for themselves the own ideology to which they enforced with all of their power? No! That is ridiculous! Possible objection: Well they should not have pushed his/their moral ideology on anyone else Answer: That statement is contradicting itself because it is saying that someone should or should not do while saying that no one should be able to say what someone should and should not do. Fundamentally, if moral truth is not absolute, but only relative, well then we couldn’t accuse anybody of ANY wrongdoing. Why? Because the individual would be the final arbiter of what is good and what is bad. So ultimately, moral relativism undermines morality completely, and that’s something that’s so absurd, I hope anyone who believes in any kind of moral relativism will come to see that, “Well, I might be a moral relativist in my thinking, but in practice I’m not a moral relativist.” Can Society Determine Right and Wrong? www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/can-society-determine-right-and-wrong (Video in this one) What to Say to Someone Who Doesn’t Believe in Moral Absolutes www.catholic.com/video/what-to-say-to-a-son-who-doesnt-believe-in-moral-absolutes
Statements have a truth value of true or false. There is not truth value of 'absolute'. Thus when someone uses the phrase 'absolute truth', they are referring to an idea that is not described by the literal meaning of the words, making the response "Are you absolutely sure?" irrelevant. Absolute truth generally refers to moral standards that are external to humans; objective standards, if you will. Making the claim that there are no objective moral standards is not itself an objective moral standard, and thus it is not contradictory to make the claim. "Fundamentally, if moral truth is not absolute, but only relative, well then we couldn’t accuse anybody of ANY wrongdoing. Why? Because the individual would be the final arbiter of what is good and what is bad." Incorrect. If I hold subjective moral standards and someone who disagrees with my standards takes an action that I object to, nothing prevents me from levying a moral judgement whether or not they agree with me. This is true even for those who hold objective moral standards. No one has to agree with your opinion, and that still doesn't stop you from having an opinion.
Morality comes from culture in my opinion. Is there an ABSOLUTE CULTURE? Why do all cultures have similarities? Is it because without GOD there is no culture? There is no culture in Hell? No Hierarchy that demons follow?
@@michaelcrean1456 I think that morality comes fro human nature. All cultures and individual people have varying understandings and knowledge of that nature but there is an absolute human nature and so I believe an absolute morality.
Dear Brian, this is a fairly good attempt at making coherent sense out of the word vomit and subtle deceptions of the moral relativists! Thank you and God bless!
The problem with the diverse answers to those order of operations Math questions began with the teacher, but there is only one truth to those kinds of problem still. (Someone didn’t get the memo or didn’t want to follow the original rule.) If you see other math problems- there’s always one answer.
They don’t believe in moral relativism for ideas that are contrary to their own, such as the NatSoc movement, even though the logical conclusion of moral relativism means that everyone is justified in their actions depending on the circumstances.
William Cloud what’s funny about the verse you quoted is if your read five chapters ahead the Israelites make two statues of angels around the ark of the covenant. Were they breaking God law only five chapters later? I highly doubt instead they were making statues to remind them of the angels that guarded the ark and as a sign of respect. The same thing Catholics do for the saints
William Cloud Jesus was condemning the traditions that went against Gods law not all traditions why would Paul command the church to stand firm in the traditions that he taught them? 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
William Cloud to respond to your point about the statues Why would God command something that He outlawed a couple of chapters earlier? Is God contradicting himself? Doesn’t this show that God was only condemning worshiping statues not the use of them? Please brother in Christ try to keep an open mind and work with the grace of God Read this article and I will read any article that you want me to I myself was once a Protestant but converted after seeing all of the biblical evidence for Catholicism www.catholic.com/tract/do-catholics-worship-statues
I like this video, the thinking and Franciscan University. But why did Cupich get keynote speaker at conference on evangelizing youth? He’s a moral relativist. He said sexual abuse of adults by clergy might be consensual so the bishops should be cautious about judging. Like it doesn’t matter if they violate vows and natural law as long as its consensual. Totally bs. It makes me wonder how deep the corruption goes.
Carlos Veritas. Henry V111 did away with the RC church because it would not grant him a divorce to marry Anne Bolyn. It had nothing todo with relativism. If youare going to make comments on youtube at least do the research and get the facts right.
@@teenherofilms Bruh, he imposed his moral code (that accepted divorce) on a whole country, based on his own preference and to mantain a comfortable position. YOU should try to find applications of moral concepts to history and give an interpretation, seems like the concept of historical interpretation doesn't fit in your head. Also, writting an historical fact that I already know (and probably know much better than you) doesn't make you a historian, facts need interpretation, moron.
To the people who take jabs at atheists because they don't have explanation to uphold values like humans rights,YES WE HAVE. Because this made us feel good,because cooperation is rewarded,because society will inevitably try to make its citizens selfless and punsih those who don't,because we dislike changing some of our values,because the human is a social species,because it is hard to be compassionate toward thesociety if you aren't compassionate to those out of the society. This does not directly lead to values,but it lead to utilitarism,and combined with pragmatism ,tradition and the human mind,it lead to a lot of values which are means and not ends.
Hi Brian. I grew up Catholic and my whole family is Catholic today. I'm not. I think they may be the worst denomination of Christianity if not for anything else, but for their influence over so many. When Catholicism strays from sound Biblical doctrine, it does so in layers or dimensions thereby exponentially increasing the likelihood of its falsity or negative effects. For example, when they pray to Saints let's say, first, the word "saint" or Greek "hagios" appears often in the New Testament yet always for a common believer. Next, Catholics start to pray or speak to the dead which is forbidden. That leads to another assumption( no pun intended) that the "saints" are omniscient( a characteristic unique to God Almighty like Omnipotence). Next, they do it by getting on their knees and making the sign of the cross as they do likewise when they pray to God. In Mark 5:6 and in many other instances, we see a man getting on his knees and worshipping Jesus which is one thing apologists use when they point to Christ's deity because we are to worship God and God alone as Jesus pointed out to Satan when being tempted in the desert. Catholics have statues or graven images that we never see any prophet of God in either the Old Testament or the New Testament bowing down before nor praying to a previous prophet who had passed away. Catholic apologetics for the statues goes as follows, " If we(society) can make statues for athletes and politicians, we can certainly do that for "saints." Except for one very important concept, the Bible is clear, "We are not supposed to emulate the world or the things in the world." 1 John 2:15, Romans 12:2, James 4:4. What's that? Man's glory.How about repeating the same prayer over again? One line or stanza in a Psalm is not the same as repeating the entire Psalm over and over again.That's about it for now. God bless you and deliver you from all evil.
I encourage you to try to better understand the faith that you have given up on, rather than calling it "worst denomination of Christianity" and then rattling off a bunch of misconceptions, showing you don't know what you're talking about.
@@levisando I've given scriptural examples and you came back with an ad hominem reply. I love you guys and that's why I am doing it. I'm not trying to get a following or sell something. Here's another scriptural reference. You know how Jesus tells us not to refer to anyone on Earth as our Father? That's Matthew 23:9. Look at the context of that entire chapter from start to finish and it's all about the scribes, Pharisees and spiritual leaders. I big part of the answer for why Catholics refer to priests as "Father" is a geological argument with "Father Abraham." They site Luke 16 along with others as examples. Context is king with exegesis and hermeneutics. There is no reason to believe that Jesus was pertaining to biology.
@@stanjz The reason why I point out that you should try to better understand the Catholic faith before you try to tell people what they believe is wrong. I'm not trying to demean you, but to encourage you to become better at what you're trying to do. We're both looking at the same passage in each of our Bibles. I know it exists. Most Catholics probably (if they follow the instruction to read and know the Scriptures) know it exists. Just pointing it out isn't going to change my mind. Catholics (should) really and truly believe that their faith does follow the instructions in the Bible as it was meant to be interpreted, and that their practices that aren't explicitly instructed within Scripture aren't going against the Bible's instruction. Because of that, just giving a few verses and your interpretation of them isn't enough.
@@levisando Ah, but I do know. There is one book sitting on a bookstand( right now) on the table I use to study scripture everyday. It's a Catholic answer Bible and I've used it for many years in addition to my years in Catholic school and conversing daily with Catholic family members.My mom is on the vision council and was in charge of RCIA for a dozen churches et cetera. One thing that I've found in any perversion of the scriptures is that there is a group of individuals who create a separate body of work that they either hold to the same level as scripture or just below it. We see this in Judaism with the Talmud. They also hold their Rabbis up in an exalted position. My prayer for you is similar to your prayer for me if you'll allow me to but it in my own words(prayer). I pray that you come to know God's Word more intimately and give it all the reverence it deserves. Jesus is called the Word for good reason. God bless.
““For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”” Genesis 3:5 NIV “20 ¶ Woe unto them that call aevil bgood, and good evil; that put cdarkness for dlight, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe unto them that are awise in their own beyes, and cprudent in their own sight!” Isiah 5:20
“Truth and morality are generally self-evident.” Why do you think that? Was the immorality of slavery self-evident 3000 years ago? And I don’t see the Geneva Convention in The Iliad. And I suppose you would have to say if T and M are self-evident, we ought to have in our possession all of it, and we will encounter no new truths or moral positions in the future. But shouldn’t history teach us otherwise?
Moral Nihilism = every moral principle can be destroyed by man. Moral Absolutism = at least one moral principle cannot be destroyed by man. Where does moral relativism go?
I'm confused. Atheists say that since truth is relative there can be no absolute truth and therefore no one God. Atheists tell me that science, which is predicated on the assumption that there is one truth, proves that there is no God. Do these people even talk to each other? Perhaps an atheist can explain this to me.
Trad Catholic: “Moral relativism is a fallacy” Me: so you agree the conquests of the Americas were wrong? Trad Catholic: “Those were different times! The natives were worse! They couldn’t be evangelized any other way!”
Well the Catholic Church didn't do the conquesting. The European monarchies sent people to conquest to the Americas. The Catholic Church came later in the form of missionaries
@@josephjackson1956 Oh, and the European monarchies were protestant? They had strict separation of Church and State, with no church authorities in their administration? And even if they had, the Church only consists of clergy, with no inclusion of laity? No, the Church was involved from the beginning.
I don't think you can make a good case for objective morality without God. So an Athiest's assertion that morality is a social construct makes perfect sense from their worldview. That's because objective morality is determined by God. That is an inescapable problem in philosophy. So the point is that relativism is a logical conclusion to that worldview but "Dictatorship of relativism" is an attempt to force atheistic worldviews on people.
Most of the time, moral relativism can objectively be associated with empires like nazi Germany, the USSR, North Korea and many other immoral nations and societies. Whoever denies natural law, depends on anthropological law
I have to say that "dictatorship of relativism" is superior to dictatorship of the absolute. The Catholic church spread misery and pain across the planet in pursuit of its goal of an absolute truth and an ideal society. I know what it is like to have the weapon of religious absolutism pointed at me. As a gay man, I have had the instruction to pray to god for forgiveness for the way he made me. I think if relativism moves people to be a little considerate of other peoples' views and experience, it has already made the world a better place.
But what of the origin of the fallacy of moral relativism? It has a psycho-philosophical basis in that other fallacy: Physical Relativity. Physics is what people worship nowadays. Einstein's pseudo-science paved the way for sophistry to replace the objectivity of Newton. Proof? Just google "instant gravity proof"
How can you stomach living in Canada you are very religious and seems like Canada is looking to apologize for religion or any type of your of Judah Christian thought and culture
@William Been there done that, my friend. I was “born again” for 20 years until I studied sola Scripture and sola Fide for myself. I also studied the history of the Church and the beliefs of the reformers. It was and is still obvious to me that the Catholic Church is the church Jesus Christ started on this Earth. No denominations. Have a Merry Christmas. I’ll be praying for you.
So the Holy Spirit sent you here to attack and insult people you don’t even know. Sounds great. You’re convincing me the Catholic Church is the Lotds church. Keep up the good work.
Boomer to Millennials: the more you ascribe to relativism, the easier you will be to be manipulated by advertisers, propagandists, and sociopaths of all sorts.
Facts!
“An array of answers as diverse as Justin Trudeau’s cabinet”
I loled, as they say.
You loled well
It's lol'd, but I lol'd at "loled".
@@MrChaosAdam I spent way too long debating the proper spelling of it.
@@levisando loled
No you're all wrong. It's lmao!
Brian, don't stop with these videos.
"Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong even if everybody is wrong. Right is right even if nobody is right." Ven. Fulton J Sheen.
Didn’t St. Augustine say something like that??
I almost want to move to wherever he lives just to be around this dude, lol.
Alberta, Canada?
Funny, I was just wondering if he lives near me. Let's pray God gives us more people like him -- and really people of God's full heart and mind -- wherever we live.
Brian,
I have RARELY heard a discussion on this subject that is as clear, incisive and understandable as this! I wish that, besides these videos on your channel, you could also publish a blog in which you could advance your points and engage others in unpacking viewpoints. Please, keep up the good work!
Fr. Martin Farrell, op
Oh my gosh... I was LITERALLY researching relativism tonight and purchasing books on amazon, and I am discerning applying to Franciscan for theology LOL
This may be helpful to you then:
CD Talk: Relativism: Do you know how it is affecting you? --By Chris Stefanick
Can Society Determine Right and Wrong?
www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/can-society-determine-right-and-wrong
(Video in this one) What to Say to Someone Who Doesn’t Believe in Moral Absolutes
www.catholic.com/video/what-to-say-to-a-son-who-doesnt-believe-in-moral-absolutes
More:
www.catholic.com/search?q=Is%20morality%20objective%20and%20how%20do%20we%20know%3F
This one is a doc w/ a bit of reading:
www.catholic.com/misc/ytmt-study-guide.pdf
I know this is a lot but I figured I'd give it to you anyway since you mentioned it. I was debating abortion with some friends and the question of objective morality came up. I have been researching it as well and this is what I found. With relativism you don't have to dig deep before you find the bottom and see that it is not logical. Most of it can be phrased in a question that is self refuting.
Relativism:
Relativist: There is no absolute truth.
Response: Are you absolutely sure?
The answer to that question would be no, you can't be because if that was true then the one absolute truth would be that there is no absolute truth. That makes no sense and follows no logic.
(Intellectual/any) Relativism: It is true for everybody that nothing is true for everybody.
This statement contradicts itself and cannot be true as it does not follow logic.
Partial Relativism: Everything that is scientifically verifiable is true, everything else is not/subjective.
Is this statement scientifically verifiable? No, it’s not. Philosophical questions are known to be true because when you apply it to real life, it is true, it works. You can’t take this statement, chop it up, and put it underneath a microscope and see if it is true ;D
Moral relativism: Every person/society/culture has to himself the right to create his own ideology and to enforce it with all of the energy to which he is capable
So terrorists (twin towers), Hitler, the holocaust, slavery are all justifiable because they have that right to create for themselves the own ideology to which they enforced with all of their power. No! That is ridiculous!
Possible objection: Well they should not have pushed his/their moral ideology on anyone else
Answer: That statement is contradicting itself because it is saying that someone should or should not do while saying that no one should be able to say what someone should and should not do.
Fundamentally, if moral truth is not absolute, but only relative, well then we couldn’t accuse anybody of ANY wrongdoing. Why? Because the individual would be the final arbiter of what is good and what is bad. So ultimately, moral relativism undermines morality completely, and that’s something that’s so absurd, I hope anyone who believes in any kind of moral relativism will come to see that, “Well, I might be a moral relativist in my thinking, but in practice I’m not a moral relativist.”
If there is no objective morality, then morality does not actually exist and neither does justice.
Sorry this was so long...I hope it's helpful.
@@zelie1155 WOW! You sure did your homework.
I have been told "Your morals are wrong, restrictive and harmful..." many times. I have yet to hear of a moral standard which isn't restrictive. I've heard people claim their chosen immorality doesn't harm anyone, I've also seen these same people complain when the consequences of their immoral choices catches up to them. Immorality is never harmless. And moral relativism is simply a new shape of amorality, which is even more destructive. The consequences may not be immediately seen or felt, but there will always be consequences.
I am an atheist and sincerely think moral relativism is a cancer.
There is a Truth and a False as much as there is a Right and a Wrong.
And I appreciate any human being, religious or not, to strive for reaching the Truth and the Right.
Atheist: "There are no moral absolutes."
Me: "Is your statement a moral absolute?"
@User 57 Well, that's just repetition really...
@User 57 as someone said thats a gotcha and not really an argumrnt moreso just restating in the hopes of a gotcha.
@User 57 That's not an answer, as it posits an objective "yours are not" without pointing to any basis for saying anyone's are or aren't
RABBIT HOLE FELLOW BUNNIES.😋
@User 57 Actually, the OP was saying that the atheist was making an objective statement about morality, which is inconsistent indeed with 'there are no moral absolutes.'
To believe in the existence of morality at all is inconsistent with relativism is the point. Anything less than objective morality is just "things happen in the world."
You are really inspirational Keep up the Good work of God🔥 😃
Prayers from India!
Hey brother, just want to say thanks for the time you put into your channel. Your videos are thought provoking and challenging. I appreciate that.
Blessing to you from Phoenix, AZ
Relativism IS THE RULE OF THE MOB in the realm of Human Reason, Intellect and Faith! WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE the One True Faith, and SHALL FIGHT AGAINST relativism, political correctness, pluralism of opinion, and the poison of HUMANISM at its microcosm! Men of the Faith, HOah! DeusVult! SemperFidelis!
Saying "Dictatorship of Relativism" reminds me of whenever someone tells you, "That's just your opinion." It's both an easy excuse to dismiss someone, a rod to thwak them on the head with (because how dare you dissuade them from something), and a mask for bad behavior. Not that there's NO relativity, there's just nowhere near as much people try to go on about.
Please don't ever stop. I actually understand these stuff now. God bless you Brian!!
Thanks for these precious thoughts brother .
I recenlty thought about another aspect of the problematic you're telling us about:
Relativists always look for a "better" moral than the natural ethical law, but they never consider there's a really BIG trouble if you start thinking about WORSE moral systems in terms of relativism .
After all, why stoning people schould be a problem ? Why pedophily couldn't be simply an individual choice, like killing innocents, lying, burning animals alive, destroying the earth for profit or just for fun ?
If you agree to the relativism, the fact is that you have nothing to oppose to someone who thinks these horrors are attractive to him: you think killing innocents is bad, Another one think it's good, you got you're opinion, he got his, so why schould society listen to your old moral and not to his personal new one ?
If morality is not based on SACRED beliefs, you have to treat your beliefs just in the same value of any others ones, than majority can impose its morals laws ... You see what I mean in the present context ?
What can you oppose to sharia if you're morality is just an opinion ?
Nothing .
What can you oppose to the economic law of the most rich, when he wants to strangle solidarity and innocence ?
Nothing .
What can you argue to oppose to the stoning of women anywhere in the world even here on your own street ?
Nothing .
If someone pretend his culture and religion is aztec, what are you borring he about interdiction to kill people ? His beliefs is as good as yours, and as good as any canibal's one, what could we oppose to it ?
Nothing .
I think that's the worse part of moral relativism: any moral is as good as yours, so the fact is that the worse one will impose itself to all .
This is a really serious thread to the whole civilization, culture or humanity at all . That's juste a matter of time to see the worse and the strongest impose its rule to all .
Be blessed bro , thanks for your really interesting work here on TH-cam .
In your heart of hearts you already know right from wrong. If you never question yourself then you avoid the truth. Still the truth and morality exists no matter what you think.
Perhaps St Paul is correct: “(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)”
Romans 2:14-15 NIV
Thanks for all these videos, Brian. You're a true blue defender of the faith in my book!
Have you by chance ever watched any of the debates featuring William Lane Craig here on TH-cam? He often incorporates the apparent reality of objective moral values and duties into his proofs and arguments. I find it amusing how often the atheists he debates want to affirm the objectivity of their own morality when claiming to have the moral high ground by way of their own "enlightened" secular ethics, but are unable to because they also deny the existence of God, which such a system must necessarily be grounded in.
The part about the "tyranny" of relativism reminds me of the similar tyranny of private interpretation of scripture. When there are thousands of ways individuals may interpret any individual verse, there also follow thousands of denominations based on those differenes of opinion. By subjugating oneself to the authority of the Church, one is ironically freed from the tyranny of needing to become one's own theologian. Nothing is quite as liberating as the truth!
John 8:31 So Jesus said to those who believed in him, “If you obey my teaching, you are really my disciples; you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
It really does hurt the poor the most. A poor person who is seeking employment will have to agree to violate his or her religious beliefs as all the corporate conglomerates who hire most minimum wage workers have made it policy to support immorality and impose it on their workers....just not workplace theft, of course.
As always, 3 Hail Marys for you, Brian.
One relativist trick to watch out for is the use of a mostly subjective reconstructed history as the source of an ideal and the framing of traditional conventions as deviations from this so-called historical origin.
Atheist: "There's no such thing as truth"
Me: "Is that true?"
Atheist: Blocks me.
Hehe, just shows how when we are full of pride, we tend to contradict ourselves. Evil is always in contradiction.
I can think of some 'progressive' priests who react like that
@@moveaxebx sadly a friend of mine said to me "relativism is true exactly because it contradicts itself" and he's a chemist. He's a fucking scientist. I'm scared
😂
That's more something a nihilist would say. The only argument that makes an atheist an argument is: "there is not enough proof to support theism".
Nature abhors a vacuum. Relativism is the vacuum. Progressivism is the bad air that rushes in to fill the vacuum.
Excellent video. Perhaps more pressing, though: when are you going to take those Les Pauls off the wall and play Achilles Last Stand, and In My Time of Dying, with pinch harmonics, exclusively?
Thank you Brian for your insight and hard work. Do you happen to have a written version of this video so that I can sit down and read it and make notes to myself? Also, have you considered publishing a book of your video transcripts?
He posts the text in the description of every video. He stays pretty close to the script in the talk.
@@kimfleury Thank you!
Exactly!!! Just hours after you posted this, I was discussing the topic of prostitution and abortion with my boyfriend -we both are Catholic.
And I always came to the fact that someone who is in favor of those things is basically saying "Despite you may find this wrong, I find it good and positive. Therefore don't do it... I will"
Of course, the point is more complicated specially if we take into account people's background. For instance, my boyfriend is from Europe whereas I am from Mexico. And those topics can be seen and therefore adressed in a different and more complicated way.
But I agree. Nowadays a lot of things are about relativism. However, how do we adrees this when someone is in a leadership position?
"He did wrong... She did wrong. They must pay/fix it...."
Why don't we do the same in our daily lives? With our neighbors? But specially with our selfs?
Greetings from Mexico!
Abortion is part of gods plan to help the overpopulation problem
Wow, he recorded this 9 months ago, every one needs to watch this
i had an argument in a class there was me and another theist argueing against an atheist who said how can you believe god if he allows evil i replied what are you defining as evil. to witch they said well i guess it is just my opinion. then i said if i believe that murder is right and you think it is wrong how how do you justify that your opinion is right. they had no answer. then said to believe in morals beyond opinion they cannot be a construct of humans as one opinion against another on a subjective issue cannot be valued over another. theretofore there must be a transcendent moral law giver with the knowledge and authority to give moral laws. the best match to this law giver is god
Well put. I believe it was Nieztche who put it nicely. It’s all about power struggles one opinion over the other.
Relativism and it's close cousin, progressivism. With no moral standard, there is no way to measure progress. The problem seems pretty daunting.
I think of it more as a diversion tactic.
It's misery loves company, with enough money and free time to support it.
Most Relativists tend to be very indulgent with their perceived tragedy, mollycoddling their booboos like children.
They want it as the centre of their being and not have morality judging it, nothing that might mirror negatively their thin-skinned ego over a swelled amorphous body of self-shed tears. Detached from humanity in self-defeating safety bubbles they lash out and want to deflate human qualities.
So they hide behind a thin layer of stoic aloofness, verbosity and a double-bluff.
They have appeal due to people seeing merit in the usual vacuous virtues of Relativism, Objectivism & Materialism: Productivity, Efficiency, Progress.
Nietzsche, Bernard Shaw, Byron, are delicious as decadence and imperial purple prose, but like most people who gorge themselves on comfort food, or better comfort confectionery it's empty calories and not very wholesome for the mind, not the body in this case.
Without God, there are NO MORAL RULES.
1:02 - "the evidence for this claim is that because propel don't always agree about what is right and wrong, there must not actually be a right and wrong. But just because there can be multiple answers to a question, it doesn't mean that there is no answer to the question."
Multiple answers imply that there is not only one answer. When talking about morality, people assert that there is only one correct moral judgement of a given action. The fact that people disagree about the correct moral judgment for a given action is evidence that there is not one correct. If you substitute the word 'objective' for 'correct', then that disagreement is evidence of no objective moral standards.
1:40 - "we ought to acknowledge that truth as well as morality are generally self-evident and then we should set ourselves to the hard work of to discover it."
If moral standards are self evident, why would there be hard work to discover what they are? The statement contradicts itself.
Multiple answers do not imply that there is no answer for the very reason I argued in the video. Multiple answers to a math question are inevitable, as I demonstrated. That doesn't mean there is no correct answer. It just means humans are fallible.
I did not say that the moral standard is self evident. I specifically said that morality, in general, is self evident. The fact that morality exists is self-evident by the relentless fixation of human beings upon it. But to understand what the correct answers are requires effort as it does truth. To turn around and say that there is no correct answer is to immediately concede an inescapable, incoherent, and blatant contradiction since that IS an answer to the question. You do not answer a question by saying there is no answer without conceding that there is an answer (because you offered one).
@@BrianHoldsworth
"That doesn't mean there is no correct answer. It just means humans are fallible. "
and specifically in terms of moral standards, how do we know that there is one correct answer, other than by assertion? people claim to know that a given moral standard is objectively true, but they cannot show how they know that.
"I did not say that the moral standard is self evident. I specifically said that morality, in general, is self evident. "
fair enough. correction accepted. morality exists as a concept. but when it gets to specifics, then the disagreement starts.
"To turn around and say that there is no correct answer is to immediately concede an inescapable, incoherent, and blatant contradiction since that IS an answer to the question."
I think the language used here is obscuring the issue. Your video was about relativism. As I understand the word, that means there is no objective, fixed standard for moral judgments of actions; such judgements are relative to the individual culture, and thus it is based on subjective standards.
So it's not that I am asserting that there is 'no answer' to the question of what moral judgement to make about a given action,. It's that I recognize my judgement is relative to the culture I grew up in. Someone who grew up in a different culture might make a different moral judgement of the same action.
Different moral judgements of the same action could be explained as 'humans being fallible' or it could be explained as there being no objective standard in the first place. I favor the latter explanation as that is what we observe: people make different moral judgements about the same action. if you favor the former explanation, what evidence can you offer that there are objective moral standards?
A relativist is someone who absolutizes the relative
1:34 Can anyone else see the faintest trace of pride/smugness on Brian's face at delivering that joke? It was quite good.
Great thinking, rational and infused with Catholicity. The only problem is that in order to see things this way, to folllw your reasoning, a person needs to be smart and/or have some background in philosophy. Most people are (or have) neither, sad to say. I’m 66 and am content to observe and practice my faith. If it comes to trying to influence, I try it mainly on my grandchildren. For others I just pray. I’m very glad youngsters with vision and intelligence like yourself are making videos like this one. Thank you!
It's 12! This video was great!
What is the prayer music in the background?
Well formulated and presented, Mr Holdsworth. If the average RE Director in the average parish had half your moxie we'd fix the hole in the hull of the church in one generation! Then the people would stop jumping overboard.
Great contribution, thanks Brian. Frederick Nietzsche's madman threw down his lamp in the market and said, I came too early! Atheists are not called out on this and consequently get away with it!
Well done Brian, you have our support
If we do a thought experiment and assume you are correct that morality is objective, upon what standard are we basing this morality? Which book of the Bible? Which Testament? Which version of Christianity, Catholic, Protestant, something else? Which religious document or tradition laying out the foundations of morality should governments use to create moral laws?
If you are saying we should use the Bible, which version? Which translation? Whose interpretation? When verses or interpretations clash, do we go with Tradition? Catholic Tradition? Something else? What if folks don't agree with your Catholic take on morality? What happens when Catholics become a minority in a nation state and some other religion or none at all takes primacy? Will you change your argument? What about separation of Church and State?
I found this argument to be too general. Specific issues and cases would be helpful.
As a Catholic, I would say it is based on both faith and reason, but the Greco-Roman age used just reason and were able to get pretty far. You first admit that there is an objective morality, then you do your best to observe behaviours and their outcomes and apply reason accordingly. Or, you could just use the foundation that was laid out for us by the ancients and the medievals who took up their standard and continue to build from there. After all, they built the greatest civilization ever known to humanity and we are still coasting off of their momentum.
@@BrianHoldsworth
Can you give specifics of whom you are arguing against? Your rhetorical shadow boxing is generally too broad, I think, to have the sharp effect you want it to. Can you give examples of what prodded you to make this video? I'm just wondering what specific targets you are disputing here. I think it would inform the discussion better.
Now, I'm no fan of 'cancel culture,' or modern capitalistic consumerism, internet flaming, or the extreme left. I am confining my response to the realm of how morality is ported over into a government's laws.
Individuals will always, under any moral system, objective or otherwise, push the boundaries. That's a given. I assume you agree.
I don't think there's too many serious relativistic philosophers arguing that morality should be a free for all. Most serious relativists are arguing that a social contract style of morality could easily replace what we have now. Many would argue that's what we already have. An example from the Catholic realm would be the birth control debate. Most Catholics just ignore the Church's teaching. So the majority of Catholics are already using a relativistic system of morality.
Brian, this is a very, very tough question. I definitely understand the desire to have a prescribed morality writ large in the stars. Again, let's leave aside the question of whether there IS an objective morality. I'm open be being convinced on that during some other discussion. But I'm more interested for this discussion in the practical matters of instituting one's will into the government...
My strongest criticism is how the human mind will have access to this objective morality; any method one might devise to access objective truth will be perceived as subjective. And any method to access this objective truth will most likely be religious or strongly infused with religious viewpoints; You'll have to demonstrate why Catholic morality should inform ALL morality to the point of underpinning society. I believe you may make the argument that Catholic morality already DOES underpin society, and to a point, that is partially correct, but it is getting peeled away bit by bit. THAT is what upsets you, am I right?
Theocracy is your goal, perhaps? I know you're from Canada but America, as an example, is not supposed to be a religious country. I'd argue that even the most devout and conservative catholics should be fighting tooth and nail to keep religion OUT of government. Both religion and government suffer when the two mix. What happens when the tables flip and your religion is not the one in charge of the government any longer?
As for the Greeks... that's bronze Age Morality. They were pleasure lovers; their sexual teachings were incompatible with Christianity. Remember the Greeks were great thinkers but they espoused pagan morality - you want to base objective truth on that?
The Romans? I'd be wary of basing morality on the Romans. They had worse sexual mores than the Greeks.
You mention medievals. Which Medievals? Catholic? or Muslim?
One could argue the Ottoman empire at its height was better, more advanced, more tolerant.
You mention the greatest civilization - Was Greek Civilization the greatest? What 'objective' standard are you basing that on? In any case, if that be true, it might not be that impressive since civilization has not been around very long. Let's reassess that in another 50,000 years.
You mention Natural Law. I see it as problematic, especially the sexual teachings. Can we never learn anything or progress, or are we shackled by the past? We could talk about natural law for days or weeks. Natural law is based on faulty science and baseless assumptions.
Lastly, if - and that is a big if - objective morality exists, that does not necessarily mean god created it or is responsible for it.
Ah CS Lewis is a fine teacher.
It seems ironic to me when I see some of our culture's most politically powerful moral relativists calling for "the rule of law" as they vie with each other for position within our political landscape. I see this quite often here in the U.S.
Great insight. I pray it changes people.
Relativism: There's nothing really wrong with slavery, murder, rape, etc. It's just a matter of opinion.
It’s kind of insane to think that there’s no universal absolute right and wrong. Once I asked an Athiest a simple question because he stated that right and wrong are “human contructs” so I asked: “Is rape objectively wrong past, present and future.” He didn’t answer the question...
Hey Brian, that was very well said but there a couple more threads to pull on here. If you have your version of goodness and truth and I have my version of goodness and truth and there is no agreed upon objective moral truth between us, the only two options left are barbarism (might makes right) or nhialism (there is no truth). Thank goodness that most people are not total moral relativist and "that reality trumps", to quote Peter Kreeft. This is why CS Lewis in Mere Christianity starts with Right and Wrong in the first chapter as a proof for the existence of God, which piviots on mans desire for perfect justice. Ultimately this is why John identifies Christ as the Logos as all truth is grounded in him as creator of all, space, time and reality. Also since Christ is incarnated as a man, he reveals man to man, or as St. John Paul II says, he gives man an athropology, revealing to man what God intended man to be.
Speaking of antropology, I highly recommend Catholic appologist Frank Sheed's book called "Society and Sanity".
@User 57 I believe that there is an objective morality and of course, an objective truth. What I mean by that is it doesn't change based off of our feelings, it is part of reality whether you believe it or not. Kind of like if I said, "I feel like the earth is flat" if you could go into outer space and look at the earth, would reality have had morphed into my feelings? Would the earth be flat? Well, of course not. `Morality is the same. I think that morality is another kind of truth and we can discover and learn what is true based off of what we know to be true. It can be debated and there can be an ultimate truth to the subject. I think that my religion is the closest to the truth, because it seems to hold up against everything the world throws at it. Morality is an objective thing but religion explains why. Another way to say it is: Morality and other objective truths are part of reality; they are a natural law (I think am using that correctly) and I believe that God created the natural laws.
This is why I don't believe in relativism:
Relativist: There is no absolute truth.
Answer: Are you absolutely sure?
The answer to that question would be no, you can't be because if that was true then the one absolute truth would be that there is no absolute truth. That makes no sense and follows no logic.
(Intellectual) Relativism: It is true for everybody that nothing is true for everybody.
This statement contradicts itself and cannot be true as it does not follow logic.
Partial Relativism: Everything that is scientifically verifiable is true, everything else is not/subjective.
Is this statement scientifically verifiable? No, it’s not. Philosophical questions are known to be true because when you apply it to real life, it is true, it works. Can’t take this statement, chop it up and put it underneath a microscope and see if it is true ;D
Moral relativism: Every person/society/culture has to himself the right to create his own ideology and to enforce it with all of the energy to which he is capable
So terrorists (twin towers), Hitler, slavery are all justifiable because they have that right to create for themselves the own ideology to which they enforced with all of their power. No! That is ridiculous!
Possible objection: Well they should not have pushed his/their moral ideology on anyone else
Answer: That statement is contradicting itself because it is saying that someone should or should not do while saying that no one should be able to say what someone should and should not do
Fundamentally, if moral truth is not absolute, but only relative, well then we couldn’t accuse anybody of ANY wrongdoing. Why? Because the individual would be the final arbiter of what is good and what is bad. So ultimately, moral relativism undermines morality completely, and that’s something that’s so absurd, I hope you or anyone who believes in any kind of moral relativism will come to see that, “Well, I might be a moral relativist in my thinking, but in practice I’m not a moral relativist.”
@User 57... here is a simple question? Why is barbarism wrong? (Can you put forth an arguement to save your own life?)
@User 57 I guess I don't see how something like the holocaust could be ever justifiable or something just "neutral". I understand that you may personally not agree with it, but that's kind of useless if all moral choices, opinions, and systems are equal. If they are all equal then you can't even defend yourself or stop them from because they have an equally as important or "moral" system as you. You can't impose your morality on them. I don't see how genocide is something just fine to do. It would have to be if allowed if someone believes it is right and good for them, or if a nation does--and they have.
If you want to joke about barbarism, fine, but even if that's not wrong how could you say that about the holocaust? What about the twin towers and suicide bombers? What about slavery? And torture? Rape? Child abuse? They are all neutral, neither right or wrong, just as your subjective philosophy demands.
No one had a right to stop the holocaust, it was a neutral event.
No one should have stopped a plane from crashing into the pentagon on 9/11? because the terrorists actions are neutral?
There is not ultimate right or wrong, no ultimate ought or ought not to, everything is equal? So the police have no right to stop anyone? And any other country can't defend itself from attack?
I don't want to sound cocky or argumentative, just blunt. I don't understand yet how this seems to pan out into something that makes sense.
@User 57 ... If you assume everything is subjective then you should probably stop putting forth arguments, because by putting forth arguments you have to assume there is truth by the very words you are using which have been previously defined.
@User 57 Would this correctly express what you are saying? "There is no right and wrong. Only power and those too weak to seek it."
Why exactly do you think there is no objective morality? Do you have a reason to not believe in it? It may be better to start with why you think it can't be or isn't instead of why it is.
Thanks, Brian. This is an excellent video. I appreciate it very much. Will share with friends and our children.
4:30 and the next little bit sounds like a good diss of the Frozen franchise
I am currently debating “is morality objective” it is fascinating and tough to do research.
Any book recommendations defending objective morality
Jonah Cane morality is subjective when comes from arbitrary chosen god and cannot be in any sense objective. Absolute morality sounds slightly more correct but still too risky to argue for.
Babha G what if God was the grounding for morality? I think our moral intuition simply tells us some things are wrong and others are right. Why should I distrust my moral intuition? I trust that my five senses are telling me the external world exist. Why can’t I trust that my moral intuition is telling me the truth that moral facts exist?
Mere Christianity paired with the Abolition of Man by CS Lewis.
Jonah Kane are you trying to win the debate or are you trying to be correct...??? Dont know.
Always trust your intuition. Follow your senses. If you have sense of empathy thats all you need. Trust yourself. Good luck.
Jonah Kane just a small advise. Try to avoid influence of dishonest charlatans who will force you to accept a set of beliefs. Dont read subjective opinions from Christian books from 1944. You can do better. All the best.
You explain things well
Relativism:
Relativist: There is no absolute truth.
Me: Are you absolutely sure?
The answer to that question would be no, you can't be because if that was true then the one absolute truth would be that there is no absolute truth. That makes no sense and follows no logic.
(Intellectual) Relativism: It is true for everybody that nothing is true for everybody.
This statement contradicts itself and cannot be true as it does not follow logic.
Partial Relativism: Everything that is scientifically verifiable is true, everything else is not/subjective.
Is this statement scientifically verifiable? No, it’s not. Philosophical questions are known to be true because when you apply it to real life, it is true, it works. You can’t take this statement, chop it up, and put it underneath a microscope and see if it is true ;D
Moral relativism: Every person/society/culture has to himself the right to create his own ideology and to enforce it with all of the energy to which he is capable
So terrorists (twin towers), Hitler, slavery are all justifiable because they have that right to create for themselves the own ideology to which they enforced with all of their power? No! That is ridiculous!
Possible objection: Well they should not have pushed his/their moral ideology on anyone else
Answer: That statement is contradicting itself because it is saying that someone should or should not do while saying that no one should be able to say what someone should and should not do.
Fundamentally, if moral truth is not absolute, but only relative, well then we couldn’t accuse anybody of ANY wrongdoing. Why? Because the individual would be the final arbiter of what is good and what is bad. So ultimately, moral relativism undermines morality completely, and that’s something that’s so absurd, I hope anyone who believes in any kind of moral relativism will come to see that, “Well, I might be a moral relativist in my thinking, but in practice I’m not a moral relativist.”
Can Society Determine Right and Wrong?
www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/can-society-determine-right-and-wrong
(Video in this one) What to Say to Someone Who Doesn’t Believe in Moral Absolutes
www.catholic.com/video/what-to-say-to-a-son-who-doesnt-believe-in-moral-absolutes
Statements have a truth value of true or false. There is not truth value of 'absolute'. Thus when someone uses the phrase 'absolute truth', they are referring to an idea that is not described by the literal meaning of the words, making the response "Are you absolutely sure?" irrelevant.
Absolute truth generally refers to moral standards that are external to humans; objective standards, if you will. Making the claim that there are no objective moral standards is not itself an objective moral standard, and thus it is not contradictory to make the claim.
"Fundamentally, if moral truth is not absolute, but only relative, well then we couldn’t accuse anybody of ANY wrongdoing. Why? Because the individual would be the final arbiter of what is good and what is bad."
Incorrect. If I hold subjective moral standards and someone who disagrees with my standards takes an action that I object to, nothing prevents me from levying a moral judgement whether or not they agree with me. This is true even for those who hold objective moral standards. No one has to agree with your opinion, and that still doesn't stop you from having an opinion.
Morality comes from culture in my opinion. Is there an ABSOLUTE CULTURE? Why do all cultures have similarities? Is it because without GOD there is no culture? There is no culture in Hell? No Hierarchy that demons follow?
@@michaelcrean1456 I think that morality comes fro human nature. All cultures and individual people have varying understandings and knowledge of that nature but there is an absolute human nature and so I believe an absolute morality.
"There is nothing more relatvistic than Facism"---BENITO MUSSOLINI
Dear Brian, this is a fairly good attempt at making coherent sense out of the word vomit and subtle deceptions of the moral relativists! Thank you and God bless!
The problem with the diverse answers to those order of operations Math questions began with the teacher, but there is only one truth to those kinds of problem still. (Someone didn’t get the memo or didn’t want to follow the original rule.) If you see other math problems- there’s always one answer.
They don’t believe in moral relativism for ideas that are contrary to their own, such as the NatSoc movement, even though the logical conclusion of moral relativism means that everyone is justified in their actions depending on the circumstances.
Nice
Truly a food for thought and inspirational. God bless you with great insight always.
Hello there
K9ER General Kenobi!
By the way I love your channel. hoping I can go to Franciscan university to study philosophy. God bless!
William Cloud what’s funny about the verse you quoted is if your read five chapters ahead the Israelites make two statues of angels around the ark of the covenant.
Were they breaking God law only five chapters later?
I highly doubt instead they were making statues to remind them of the angels that guarded the ark and as a sign of respect.
The same thing Catholics do for the saints
William Cloud Jesus was condemning the traditions that went against Gods law not all traditions why would Paul command the church to stand firm in the traditions that he taught them?
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
William Cloud to respond to your point about the statues
Why would God command something that He outlawed a couple of chapters earlier? Is God contradicting himself? Doesn’t this show that God was only condemning worshiping statues not the use of them?
Please brother in Christ try to keep an open mind and work with the grace of God
Read this article and I will read any article that you want me to
I myself was once a Protestant but converted after seeing all of the biblical evidence for Catholicism
www.catholic.com/tract/do-catholics-worship-statues
William Cloud do you have pictures of family members in your house?
After all God said don’t make images of any form.
William Cloud all the verse says is not to worship statues it does not say all statues are forbidden 🚫
I like this video, the thinking and Franciscan University. But why did Cupich get keynote speaker at conference on evangelizing youth? He’s a moral relativist.
He said sexual abuse of adults by clergy might be consensual so the bishops should be cautious about judging. Like it doesn’t matter if they violate vows and natural law as long as its consensual.
Totally bs. It makes me wonder how deep the corruption goes.
Amen brother!!!!
9:16 Henry VIII, best example of moral relativism and it's dictatorship. You don't agree with him? Off with your head.
Carlos Veritas. Henry V111 did away with the RC church because it would not grant him a divorce to marry Anne Bolyn. It had nothing todo with relativism. If youare going to make comments on youtube at least do the research and get the facts right.
@@teenherofilms Bruh, he imposed his moral code (that accepted divorce) on a whole country, based on his own preference and to mantain a comfortable position.
YOU should try to find applications of moral concepts to history and give an interpretation, seems like the concept of historical interpretation doesn't fit in your head.
Also, writting an historical fact that I already know (and probably know much better than you) doesn't make you a historian, facts need interpretation, moron.
To the people who take jabs at atheists because they don't have explanation to uphold values like humans rights,YES WE HAVE.
Because this made us feel good,because cooperation is rewarded,because society will inevitably try to make its citizens selfless and punsih those who don't,because we dislike changing some of our values,because the human is a social species,because it is hard to be compassionate toward thesociety if you aren't compassionate to those out of the society. This does not directly lead to values,but it lead to utilitarism,and combined with pragmatism ,tradition and the human mind,it lead to a lot of values which are means and not ends.
Hi Brian. I grew up Catholic and my whole family is Catholic today. I'm not. I think they may be the worst denomination of Christianity if not for anything else, but for their influence over so many. When Catholicism strays from sound Biblical doctrine, it does so in layers or dimensions thereby exponentially increasing the likelihood of its falsity or negative effects. For example, when they pray to Saints let's say, first, the word "saint" or Greek "hagios" appears often in the New Testament yet always for a common believer. Next, Catholics start to pray or speak to the dead which is forbidden. That leads to another assumption( no pun intended) that the "saints" are omniscient( a characteristic unique to God Almighty like Omnipotence). Next, they do it by getting on their knees and making the sign of the cross as they do likewise when they pray to God. In Mark 5:6 and in many other instances, we see a man getting on his knees and worshipping Jesus which is one thing apologists use when they point to Christ's deity because we are to worship God and God alone as Jesus pointed out to Satan when being tempted in the desert. Catholics have statues or graven images that we never see any prophet of God in either the Old Testament or the New Testament bowing down before nor praying to a previous prophet who had passed away. Catholic apologetics for the statues goes as follows, " If we(society) can make statues for athletes and politicians, we can certainly do that for "saints." Except for one very important concept, the Bible is clear, "We are not supposed to emulate the world or the things in the world." 1 John 2:15, Romans 12:2, James 4:4. What's that? Man's glory.How about repeating the same prayer over again? One line or stanza in a Psalm is not the same as repeating the entire Psalm over and over again.That's about it for now. God bless you and deliver you from all evil.
I encourage you to try to better understand the faith that you have given up on, rather than calling it "worst denomination of Christianity" and then rattling off a bunch of misconceptions, showing you don't know what you're talking about.
@@levisando I've given scriptural examples and you came back with an ad hominem reply. I love you guys and that's why I am doing it. I'm not trying to get a following or sell something. Here's another scriptural reference. You know how Jesus tells us not to refer to anyone on Earth as our Father? That's Matthew 23:9. Look at the context of that entire chapter from start to finish and it's all about the scribes, Pharisees and spiritual leaders. I big part of the answer for why Catholics refer to priests as "Father" is a geological argument with "Father Abraham." They site Luke 16 along with others as examples. Context is king with exegesis and hermeneutics. There is no reason to believe that Jesus was pertaining to biology.
@@stanjz The reason why I point out that you should try to better understand the Catholic faith before you try to tell people what they believe is wrong. I'm not trying to demean you, but to encourage you to become better at what you're trying to do.
We're both looking at the same passage in each of our Bibles. I know it exists. Most Catholics probably (if they follow the instruction to read and know the Scriptures) know it exists. Just pointing it out isn't going to change my mind. Catholics (should) really and truly believe that their faith does follow the instructions in the Bible as it was meant to be interpreted, and that their practices that aren't explicitly instructed within Scripture aren't going against the Bible's instruction. Because of that, just giving a few verses and your interpretation of them isn't enough.
@@levisando Ah, but I do know. There is one book sitting on a bookstand( right now) on the table I use to study scripture everyday. It's a Catholic answer Bible and I've used it for many years in addition to my years in Catholic school and conversing daily with Catholic family members.My mom is on the vision council and was in charge of RCIA for a dozen churches et cetera. One thing that I've found in any perversion of the scriptures is that there is a group of individuals who create a separate body of work that they either hold to the same level as scripture or just below it. We see this in Judaism with the Talmud. They also hold their Rabbis up in an exalted position. My prayer for you is similar to your prayer for me if you'll allow me to but it in my own words(prayer). I pray that you come to know God's Word more intimately and give it all the reverence it deserves. Jesus is called the Word for good reason. God bless.
Do a show with Dr. Taylor Marshall!
I've invited him, he ignored me. Not sure why.
Scott Hahn - hmmmmmmmmm
#TRUTH, #REASON, #FAITH
““For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.””
Genesis 3:5 NIV
“20 ¶ Woe unto them that call aevil bgood, and good evil; that put cdarkness for dlight, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe unto them that are awise in their own beyes, and cprudent in their own sight!” Isiah 5:20
Watched it twice. Good stuff.
You're like the modern day C.S. Lewis
Now now, let's not get ahead of ourselves.
“Truth and morality are generally self-evident.” Why do you think that? Was the immorality of slavery self-evident 3000 years ago? And I don’t see the Geneva Convention in The Iliad. And I suppose you would have to say if T and M are self-evident, we ought to have in our possession all of it, and we will encounter no new truths or moral positions in the future. But shouldn’t history teach us otherwise?
The god within; does not negate the One without.
I don't think Marx was a relativist. Nor Nietzsche for that matter. Seems to gloss over this a bit.
To put it simple ..."the laws are written in our hearts " Jesus Christ.
What's wrong with having a diverse cabinet? Inclusion is a bad thing?
it id always wrong to control people.
God, Honour, Fatherland
Lawyers Guns and Money
Moral Nihilism = every moral principle can be destroyed by man.
Moral Absolutism = at least one moral principle cannot be destroyed by man.
Where does moral relativism go?
I'm confused.
Atheists say that since truth is relative there can be no absolute truth and therefore no one God.
Atheists tell me that science, which is predicated on the assumption that there is one truth, proves that there is no God.
Do these people even talk to each other?
Perhaps an atheist can explain this to me.
Not all atheists believe these things.
Trad Catholic: “Moral relativism is a fallacy”
Me: so you agree the conquests of the Americas were wrong?
Trad Catholic: “Those were different times! The natives were worse! They couldn’t be evangelized any other way!”
Well the Catholic Church didn't do the conquesting. The European monarchies sent people to conquest to the Americas.
The Catholic Church came later in the form of missionaries
@@josephjackson1956 Oh, and the European monarchies were protestant? They had strict separation of Church and State, with no church authorities in their administration? And even if they had, the Church only consists of clergy, with no inclusion of laity?
No, the Church was involved from the beginning.
The new morality is predicated on “tolerance” and “acceptance”, rather than truth and objectivity.
Free Speech Advocate And Trump trumps the intolerance of the left ;-)
I don't think you can make a good case for objective morality without God. So an Athiest's assertion that morality is a social construct makes perfect sense from their worldview. That's because objective morality is determined by God. That is an inescapable problem in philosophy.
So the point is that relativism is a logical conclusion to that worldview but "Dictatorship of relativism" is an attempt to force atheistic worldviews on people.
Most of the time, moral relativism can objectively be associated with empires like nazi Germany, the USSR, North Korea and many other immoral nations and societies.
Whoever denies natural law, depends on anthropological law
I have to say that "dictatorship of relativism" is superior to dictatorship of the absolute. The Catholic church spread misery and pain across the planet in pursuit of its goal of an absolute truth and an ideal society. I know what it is like to have the weapon of religious absolutism pointed at me. As a gay man, I have had the instruction to pray to god for forgiveness for the way he made me. I think if relativism moves people to be a little considerate of other peoples' views and experience, it has already made the world a better place.
Jesus is a Protestant - but I enjoy these vids!
Grace Pilgrim, Jesus was Jewish as were all the men who wrote the bible, all of them Jews
Gary Williams, Protestant Jews - I'm cool with that.
@@teenherofilms well the apostles are better defined as Christians because they followed Christ, but it was seen as a Jewish sect at the time
bingo......pun intended....
But what of the origin of the fallacy of moral relativism? It has a psycho-philosophical basis in that other fallacy: Physical Relativity. Physics is what people worship nowadays. Einstein's pseudo-science paved the way for sophistry to replace the objectivity of Newton. Proof? Just google "instant gravity proof"
And sadly, that “new morality” is emerging at Franciscan U, and even to a greater degree in the Pontificate of Pope Francis.
stevensonrf how so at Franciscan U?
Here is a link with more information you may want to read? www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/franciscan-university-president-wont-disinvite-cupich
Can anyone here actually prove God's existence? Just curious. Also I'm not a relativist - not all us Atheists are.
As long as you're just curious, no.
Moral relativism makes me think of Buddhism for some reason. "Nothing exists"
Yup. Nietzsche basically.
How can you stomach living in Canada you are very religious and seems like Canada is looking to apologize for religion or any type of your of Judah Christian thought and culture
Abolish
I call it the church of woke
Catholics don't proseletise so--- ya'll need to get out there
The best time for Christianity was before it became a state religion: once Rome got its grubby hands on it it went rapidly downhill.
Bullseye.
You might want to read the rest of that chapter and look in the mirror. Context matters.
@William The world is lucky to have you here to tell us who has the Holy Spirit and who doesn’t. Thanks.
@William Been there done that, my friend. I was “born again” for 20 years until I studied sola Scripture and sola Fide for myself. I also studied the history of the Church and the beliefs of the reformers. It was and is still obvious to me that the Catholic Church is the church Jesus Christ started on this Earth. No denominations. Have a Merry Christmas. I’ll be praying for you.
So the Holy Spirit sent you here to attack and insult people you don’t even know. Sounds great. You’re convincing me the Catholic Church is the Lotds church. Keep up the good work.