Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

C. Ratzinger is wrong about Moral Relativism; I wonder why . . ?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 05:31 PM
Original message
C. Ratzinger is wrong about Moral Relativism; I wonder why . . ?
Pardon my Rant :

Certainly any real training in Philosophy acquaints one with the fact that moral relativism does not consider itself an absolute.

The Cardinal said the goals of moral relativism are Ego as God, hmmmmm. . . . Funny, I'm moral relativist; I have been for a long time, and my guiding lights are provided by empirical rationalism, with caveats regarding the nature of proof, which never assumes 100% anything, it is not completely self-referential, unlike some I can think of . . . who, BTW, sometimes choose to start wars, or hold an Inquisition. Have you ever heard of an Auto de Fe? That's absolutist.

...................................

So whose camp is the Cardinal Ratzinger in anyway? IMO, he's either very confused, actively misleading, or dictating something about what he wants us to think Moral Relativism is, *AND* he's got it wrong.

I am a moral relativist, many people would tell you that I am hyper-aware of myself and others. I ask why a lot.

People who say there is no right and no wrong are not moral relativists; they are absolutists masquerading as relativists, and sometimes they are fascists too, about other people's lives.

And any relativist knows a singularity, such as ego, is a (cognitive) error in the empirical, phenomenological, and relative facts of human experience as it is Lived in ALL of its contexts . . .. including "meanings", or Why?, ergo MR not likely to try to assume absolute power over anything except one's self, to whatever extent possible, and really freely, according to clearly designed values, which I/we have acquired, evaluated, and adapted functionally for the good of self and others, within our own organic comunities.

Afterall, ethics doesn't even really need religion, but I assume a distinction between "religion" and spiritual phenomenology. To me religion appears to be a business.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. Okay, this is inside baseball. To the religion section with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Ohkee Doke. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 12th 2024, 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC