What's Wrong With Moral Relativism? w/ Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P. & Prof. Francis Beckwith
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ต.ค. 2024
- ⭐ The new Aquinas 101 Learning Platform is LIVE! Unlock all the Aquinas 101 courses in one place and track your progression at your own pace through the wisdom of the Angelic Doctor for FREE at go.thomisticin....
🎥, Keep the Aquinas 101 cameras rolling! Donate $5 today to pay it forward for the next viewer: go.thomisticin....
What's wrong with moral relativism? Join Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P. of Aquinas 101, Godsplaining, and Pints with Aquinas for an off-campus conversation with Prof. Francis Beckwith about his latest Thomistic Institute lecture, "Is There Anything Wrong With Moral Relativism?"
What's Wrong With Moral Relativism? w/ Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P. & Prof. Francis Beckwith (Off-Campus Conversations)
You can listen to the original lecture here:
/ thomisticinstitute
Subscribe to our channel here:
www.youtube.co...
--
Enroll in Aquinas 101 to receive the latest videos, readings, and podcasts in your email inbox each week.
Sign up here: aquinas101.tho...
Help us film Aquinas 101!
Donate here: go.thomisticin...
Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!
Explore here: go.thomisticin...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinsti...
#ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic #Thomism
I enjoy listening to these because they stretch my non philosopher mind.
I like his illustration at the outest, but my struggle with those who promote moral relativism is that they often subvert truth; they make their case with unbalanced emotions based on bad data, deceit or fallacious syllogisms.
Often, those who promote atheism will resort to something which is untrue to make a case for their cause.
The best and, I feel, most authentic atheists that I encounter are not the ones who tirelessly and emotionally argue against the existence of a being that they say does not exist, the most authentic atheists are those who simply do not care or do not wish to engage in arguments of this nature.
When I find these individuals, then I can rightfully have a sincere discussion with someone who does not believe in a creator. This is a point of view that is unique to me and I seek to hear it out, maybe I can listen to such an individual and, also, maybe I can help to understand and increase my own faith by engaging with such a person.
Around 19:00 you talked about those that advocate killing the unborn as believing they are not persons....is that true? Or through their relativistic mindset immediately come to the conclusion that killing unborn babies is ok and then just take every argument to justify that position (regardless of whether it's believable or reasonable)?
Maybe they come to that conclusion because, in nature not every fertilized egg or "person" is accepted by the body of the woman. Therefore it seems like god is okay with killing some unborn babies.
6:56
Comment for traction.
Very good conversation. However, as usual, I am at a loss to see why people cannot understand the meaning of the word "natural" in "Natural Law." The Natural Law can be derived from facts about nature (including facts about human nature). No need for God in the equation (although it does not exclude it). Until we get that point, bridging the gap between believer and unbeliever will be impossible. The Natural Law is the link, but ONLY if we keep in mind the importance of the word "natural."
My biggest problem with moral relativism is that it's absolutely spineless.
It turns humans into wet socks on a moral level.
My biggest problem with it is that it is an oxymoron. Morality is objective or it is not. There can logically be no such thing as relative morality. And this is true whether one believes in God or not.
@@KRGruner that's another frustration.
People who claim "morality is relave" aren't actually talking about morality, they are talking about "social norms" wearing a shirt that says "morality".
That's why all their arguments are about social norms, and they never even think to argue about the actual object of morality, the act itself
@@marvalice3455 Indeed.
Seems like it’s relativism to deem the Bible the word of God relative to other words in books.
Gosh, could've done a much more full and fair job of steel man-ing the relativism view. He keeps it over simplified and misses key elements of why it is attractive.
Why is it attractive. Better yet, is it true?
A Christian Must be a moral relativist in relation to the culture they live in. Christ is the only absolute, however a Christian should be a pragmatist. Culture absurdist is a Protestant position.
So, no. The only way you can justify this is with an incorrect definition of moral relativism.
A Christian must acknowledge the world is wicked, yet also try to save souls. Taking on any variation of moral relativism is a hindrance to both
@@marvalice3455 what’s with this “save” souls like we’re John Wayne? I was referring to cultural morality- if we are all sinners how can we have sound moral judgment? I defer truth to the commands of Christ- I am skeptical of “man’s” moral reasoning. That’s the problem with our church. Western patriarchal categories are assumed as gospel truth when all moral reasoning by humanity is flawed. Just look at obsession of fighting sin with law- directly contradicts the cross.
@@lmgracie8227 and yet, you submit yourself to the transient fad that "patriarchal" is bad, even though God himself says he is father.
@@marvalice3455 God being the father is not a green light for a patriarchal society. Where does Christ command us about how we should govern ourselves? Doesn’t he say, “Render on to Caesar?” If one believe in a natural hierarchy then it’s evident someone has been drinking the “koolade”
So the only argument I heard in here about why god/gods are necessary for morality is because you feel we need them to tell us to be good tomorrow? Not even going to address how our moral sense clearly changes over time, or how moral teachings are wildly different over time even in the bible? You mentioned abortion as a moral issue, but didn't mention that the bible endorses, and actually commands it in some cases.
Uhhh, where in the title did you read the subject was about "arguments about why God is necessary for morality"?
The subject is about moral relativism, that is, if morality is objective, or subjective.
@@godfreydebouillon8807 He didn't even address that, other than to critique a couple of straw man arguments for relativism. I think if that was the intent he should first establish that morality is objective. I was addressing the points he made, not the title.
@@heavyhitter321 This is The Thomistic Institute, the entire basis of objective morality, Natural Law etc, is Thomism, and you can go look it up in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it takes up vast sections. To say that they don't have any arguments for objective morality is absurd. Their arguments for objective morality was the entire basis of Western Civilization, Western jurisprudence, criminal law, and everything.
@@godfreydebouillon8807 I am familiar with Aquinas, and it starts from the assumption that morality is objective. The best argument I have heard for that from anyone is that how can we have a concept of right and wrong without a supernatural law giver. This ignores the fact that morality changes constantly over time, and the fact that we are a social species that relies on cooperation as a survival strategy.
@@heavyhitter321 No, if you understood Aquinas, it doesn't "start with the assumption" of anything.
These are centuries old concepts, that predate Aquinas, pertaining to universals and particulars. Is math universal? Are geometric shapes universal? Is morality universal? Is justice universal? etc etc. If every human and living creature in the universe ceased to exist, and a billion years from now a new species arose who were intelligent enough to think of such things, is there something out there that would require that they think that a triangle has 3 sides, to have the same understanding of addition as we do, that raping and murdering toddlers is wrong etc etc? Would all of these concepts persist, even though nobody existed to conceptualize them? If so, where? In the matter they describe? What if all matter ceased to exist, would "triangularity" still exist? Could it return? Where did it go? If you think that ANY of these things exist apart from the human mind, and that fact is a fundamental feature of reality, then you believe in objectivism.
Aquinas didn't "just assume" anything, anymore than a physicists "just assume" mathematics is universal inside the universe, outside the universe, in any possible universe, before the universe and eternally into the future.
So, no, Aquinas is not just making up any assumptions here, he's taking long standing metaphysics, pertaining to Universals, and arguing that they do not persist in nature, but a final cause and teleology that is purposefully applying these things to people and objects.
No "assumptions" going on here, insofar as the inverse would *also* be assumptions, ie mathematics is not universal, geometric shapes are not universal, morality has no universality to it, justice has no universality etc, or the assumption that if they do in fact exist, they just invisibly float around out there and are somehow binded to matter.