Jump to content

Pluralism And Relativism?


BillM

Recommended Posts

I think these definitions of pluralism ignore the interconnection between religion, cultural and social practice. Of it were merely a matter of each different group observing and practicing their religion behind the doors of their churches, synagues, whatever designated sacred places, and their own homes, that works. But people go out into daily life, acting out of that intertwined mix of religion, cultural and social practices, and there is going to be discord between how one groups accustomed behaviors and attitudes interact and even interfere with those of others.

Jenell

Jenell,

 

I don't agree that diversity necessarily entails discord. Of course there are many examples of ethnic strife in situations where different groups live in proximity. Nazi Germany would be a classic example. The American South (in which I grew up) until recent times is another. People lived in tight bounded domains (physical and social) and had very negative attitudes about the other. I would not consider these as pluralistic as they lacked the acceptance feature.

 

Pluralism, as I understand it, entails both diversity and the acceptance of the diversity. I personally very much like living in a diverse culture. I am not African-American, Hispanic or Asian but that doesn't mean that I cannot appreciate their cultural differences and contributions to the "common civilization" (Merriam Webster). I am not Catholic, Mormon or Jewish, but I have no animosity against these groups. And, I don't think I am an exception or exceptional.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snapback.pngHornet, on 28 November 2011 - 01:46 PM, said:

There is a kind of pluralism called "religious pluralism", which says that all religions are equally valid as ways to God. If this is correct, then there is no good reason to do evangelism.

Religious pluralism makes no value judgments about all actually being equally valid. Denial of the ability to evaluate religions is a postmodern stance. That is the weakness of the postmodern. What religious pluralism does ask is relationship and dialog. In that relationship both subjects grow in their understanding of their own religious beliefs and their understanding of the other.

 

And if one religion requires or motivates something of or in its adherents that is reprehensible according to popular consensus then in that dialog, which also takes place in the public square there will be changes.

 

Dutch

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if one religion requires or motivates something of or in its adherents that is reprehensible according to popular consensus then in that dialog, which also takes place in the public square there will be changes.

 

Yes. Even the most relativistic among us does not advocate acceptance of racism, homophobia and the like. We tend to draw the acceptability line at benign beliefs and behaviors.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many progressive groups use the expression "there are many paths to God". This is a form of pluralism but, there is much more here. The pluaralism is in the word "paths" or the many ways of seeking but, and this is very important, there is a final unity in the goal where "the many" find their "unity" in God. Thus we have a "both-and" solution to an age old problem.

 

Myron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many progressive groups use the expression "there are many paths to God". This is a form of pluralism but, there is much more here. The pluaralism is in the word "paths" or the many ways of seeking but, and this is very important, there is a final unity in the goal where "the many" find their "unity" in God. Thus we have a "both-and" solution to an age old problem.

 

Myron

 

Well said except it could have stopped at "....the many find their unity..... period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jenyll

I also do not think the particular set of commonly accepted or tradtional theological positions and doctrines shape the values and beliefs of the people of the congregation, but rather the reverse, the sub-culturally instilled values and beliefs systems shape theology and doctrine.

Yup. Generally I think this is true but I did observe a friend who had not thought out her own ideas about gays be influenced by a church her husband worked in. It was through other conversations about real life experiences that moved her back toward being more accepting of gays. But in general yes.

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you (or would you) differentiate between pluralism and relativism?

 

Greetings Wayseeker,

 

I see no need to differentiate between the two. In fact, in my observation, the two are inextricably linked.

 

Pluralism is simply the realization that the world doesn't end at my driveway, and relativism is the reason.

 

One should examine oneself for a very long time before thinking of condemning others. - Moliere

 

Personally, I find comfort in variety. It makes it more difficult to choose sides.

 

NORM

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NORM,

 

"Pluralism is simply the realization that the world doesn't end at my driveway, and relativism is the reason."

 

That may well be the case.

 

I think that Western religion has typically held to a "destination-type" view, that our beliefs and practices lead either to heaven or to a better world or to a better us. So we have the notions with pluralism that "all roads lead to Rome" or that "all paths lead to God" i.e. there is a goal in mind, something to "get to."

 

But if pluralism and relativism are basically the same thing, then it seems to me that our driveways simply lead to everywhere (if we go far enough). There is no destination, no goal, we simply drive around, taking in the scenery. The point is to enjoy the drive, not to go anywhere. This is probably an Eastern notion and has some validity. I'm just not sure how it fits with Jesus' teachings about the kingdom of God and the over-riding notion that God is redeeming the world.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if pluralism and relativism are basically the same thing, then it seems to me that our driveways simply lead to everywhere (if we go far enough). There is no destination, no goal, we simply drive around, taking in the scenery.

 

I think that pluralism and relativism are related but not the same thing. And, I think both are related to tolerance and that has a very practical result: reduction of discord and violence.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relativism denies either: a) there are no universal truths about the world, only different ways of interpreting it or, B) there are no universally valid moral principles. One is a crucial claim concerning our cognitive capacities (cognitive relativism), the other concerning the source moral judgments (ethical relativism).

 

Ethical relativism comes in two subtypes. Conventionalism contains two main assumptions: a) what is considered morally right or wrong varies from culture to culture and, B) all moral principles derive their validity from cultural acceptance. Subjectivism holds that "morality is in the eyes of the beholder".

 

Most importantly, the fact that moral rules differ from society to socitety (cultural relativism), it shoud not be confused with the normative thesis of ethical relativism. This is noted in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy and, having lived in two cultures for much of my life, I strongly agree.

 

As for the (conventional) thesis of ethical relativism, I strongly diagree. It places too much emphasis on the role society, and assumes humans are little more than a herd of sheep ... but that's a long story. Would Jesus have accepted a strong form of ethical relativism? Most likely not, as the Old testament is a strong form of ethical objectivism or the idea that there are (at least some) universal moral rules.

 

I think the real test for each of us is in the nuances between extreme positions ...?

 

Myron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pluralism, in some forms, can be distinguished from strong forms of relativism. A typical example is that of the difference between a chair as a piece of furniture and the diversity of attributes or distinguishing properties of chairs. As far as ethics is concerned, pluralism might see both a common ethical principle (a chair) and the various styles of chairs found in different cultures.

 

Myron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myron,

 

Aside from a theoretical construct, does anyone really embrace absolute relativism? I have never encountered them personally or in writing. As an example, does anyone claim that killing, lying or stealing is morally neutral in all instances?

 

Different cultures define moral principles differently on the edges, but to my knowledge no culture permits, as example, killing under any circumstance against any person at any time. Therefore, I think we would all agree that killing is a core moral absolute with clearly defined exceptions that vary from culture to culture.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a kind of relativism called "moral relativism", which says that moral truth is relative to the individual person (Ethical Subjectivism) or relative to a person's culture (Ethical Conventionalism). If moral truth is relative to the individual person, then whatever I think is morally right is in fact morally right. If moral truth is relative to a person's culture, then whatever a person's culture says is morally right is actually morally right.

 

Moral relativism is different from ethical objectivism, which says that there are universal moral truths that exist independently of what human beings think. According to ethical objectivism, torturing babies for the fun of it would be morally wrong independently of what I think or what my culture thinks or what some other cultures think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a kind of relativism called "moral relativism", which says that moral truth is relative to the individual person (Ethical Subjectivism) or relative to a person's culture (Ethical Conventionalism). If moral truth is relative to the individual person, then whatever I think is morally right is in fact morally right. If moral truth is relative to a person's culture, then whatever a person's culture says is morally right is actually morally right.

 

I would argue that these (individual and cultural) variations exist within a basic, universal set of values. There is good research to suggest that we are all born with certain moral impulses and these get elaborated by culture and experience. The differences are in the details, not the basics.

 

To my knowledge, no culture, or sane, sober and mature individual would claim that whimsically torturing babies is a morally neutral act like say pulling weeds or breaking rocks.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myron,

 

Aside from a theoretical construct, does anyone really embrace absolute relativism? I have never encountered them personally or in writing. As an example, does anyone claim that killing, lying or stealing is morally neutral in all instances?

 

Different cultures define moral principles differently on the edges, but to my knowledge no culture permits, as example, killing under any circumstance against any person at any time. Therefore, I think we would all agree that killing is a core moral absolute with clearly defined exceptions that vary from culture to culture.

 

George

 

George,

 

I have never met an absolute relativist in practice either. It seems that, sooner or later, some moral principles hold sway whether justified by rational operations or non-rational emotions and intuitions. That they hold is what I care most about, not so much how.

 

Myron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A different way saying what others have been saying here.

 

The Moral Life of Babies

 

Morality, then, is a synthesis of the biological and the cultural, of the unlearned, the discovered and the invented. Babies possess certain moral foundations — the capacity and willingness to judge the actions of others, some sense of justice, gut responses to altruism and nastiness. Regardless of how smart we are, if we didn’t start with this basic apparatus, we would be nothing more than amoral agents, ruthlessly driven to pursue our self-interest. But our capacities as babies are sharply limited. It is the insights of rational individuals that make a truly universal and unselfish morality something that our species can aspire to.

 

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but to my knowledge no culture permits, as example, killing under any circumstance against any person at any time.

 

George

 

What about war (particularly assassinations)? Capital punishment? Lynchings in the South? The Crusades? Purges and Pogroms?

 

I think that killing is relative to whether or not the victim is "the enemy" or not.

 

In the construct of the so-called "just war," it can be said that killing the enemy is morally correct because one is preventing a "greater evil."

 

NORM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if pluralism and relativism are basically the same thing, then it seems to me that our driveways simply lead to everywhere (if we go far enough). There is no destination, no goal, we simply drive around, taking in the scenery. The point is to enjoy the drive, not to go anywhere.

 

This is my view of the world, except the part about not going anywhere. Each experience is moving me closer to a greater understanding of those things previously undiscovered.

 

This is probably an Eastern notion and has some validity. I'm just not sure how it fits with Jesus' teachings about the kingdom of God and the over-riding notion that God is redeeming the world.

 

I think that if Jesus existed, then he would probably hold the same worldview (were he living in this age) - given that Judaism is an Eastern philosophy. However, the real Jesus has probably been plastered over so thoroughly with Western plaster as to be unrecognizable.

 

And, can it not be said that human evolution in terms of intellectual and experiential progress is indeed redemption?

 

NORM

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue that these (individual and cultural) variations exist within a basic, universal set of values.

George

Douglas Johnston on Faith-Based Diplomacy

http://fora.tv/2007/...Based_Diplomacy

 

In this talk two of the tools used are

1. Helping believers (in any religion) find the best teachings in their religion.

2 Helping believers recognize globally accepted values of human rights and then finding support for that in their Sacred texts.

It is an interesting dynamic because the best of religions has been part of the evolution of those globally accepted human rights and values and then those accepted values inform the reading of Scripture.

 

"Universal set of values" is OK with me as long as we understand that they do not exist separately from us; that we are continually maintaining them and changing them and that we rely so much on prophetic voices to bring us back to the highest value if we forget.

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Aside from a theoretical construct, does anyone really embrace absolute relativism? I have never encountered them personally or in writing. As an example, does anyone claim that killing, lying or stealing is morally neutral in all instances?

 

 

Christine O'Donnell had said she thought it was wrong to lie to the Nazis to hide Jews from them and that she would not have lied to the Nazis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about war (particularly assassinations)? Capital punishment? Lynchings in the South? The Crusades? Purges and Pogroms?

 

I think that killing is relative to whether or not the victim is "the enemy" or not.

 

In the construct of the so-called "just war," it can be said that killing the enemy is morally correct because one is preventing a "greater evil."

 

NORM

 

 

I agree. These killings are not amoral acts. They are justified by the 'greater evil.'

 

FWIW, the translation of the Hebrew word ratsach in the 6th Commandant 'kill' is IMO a bad translation. It does not ban killing; it bans 'murder' (illegal killing). It is very clear that the Jewish law allowed all sorts of killing (enemies, adulterers, etc.). The 6th Commandment is often wrongly cited as prohibiting war, abortion, capital punishment, etc. These may be argued to be wrong on other grounds, but they are not prohibited by the 6th Commandment.

 

George

Edited by GeorgeW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I like Karen Armstrong’s approach to this with “The Charter for Compassion.” She believes that at the center (relativists probably wouldn’t agree with this term) of all the world’s great religions is what we call the Golden Rule – doing unto others as we would have done unto ourselves. Though a monotheist, she believes that religion essentially comes down to how we treat one another. So she suggests that the leaders of the world’s great religions put forth the effort to examine (or reexamine) their religious scriptures and traditions in the light of the Golden Rule and work together to show how each religion supports and lives out this central truth. This would also entail modifying those religions if necessary. Obviously, no small endeavor.

 

Going back to my cosmological analogy, I think Karen would put the Golden Rule as the sun in the center of the solar system. All the other world religions would circle around this sun, keeping their distinctions, but finding their source and light in the Golden Rule. In this way, Karen hopes, the world religions can learn to be part of the same solar family, yet not give up the distinctive things that make each religion unique and meaningful to its adherents.

 

Therefore, if I’m a Christian, I don’t have to give up my Christianity AS LONG AS I view it and interpret it through how I treat others, going back to Jesus’ two commands. But if I think Christianity is all about who goes to heaven and who goes to hell in the afterlife, then, yes, I need to reconsider that doctrine in the light of the Golden Rule. I would suspect that other world religions would face similar challenges. To me, this would be a good form of pluralism.

 

Relativism, on the other hand (and in my view) would mean that it really doesn’t matter which world religion (or none) that one chooses. As long as you are sincere about it or it makes you feel good, go for it. This, to me, is dangerous because while I feel that people are capable of great good, we are also capable of great evil, and relativism swings the door wide open for people to do anything they want to one another as long as they are sincere or it makes them feel good.

 

So I would support Karen’s view of pluralism, if that is what she is presupposing, especially in putting compassion at the core of what it means to be religious or part of a faith tradition. If we don’t have that, then, as one apostle said, all we have is a bunch of noise. I, for one, would be all for putting compassion at the center of pluralism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It does not ban killing; it bans 'murder' (illegal killing). It is very clear that the Jewish law allowed all sorts of killing (enemies, adulterers, etc.).

 

George

It may be that the 6th commandment is in conversation with the accounts of massacres, etc. and not part of a unified message. There is more than one view in the Hebrew Bible.

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service