Catholicism and Politics - Interesting Segment with Bishop Robert Barron (2 Viewers)

[wardorican]

Start from about 3min in, where I'm linking this. The first bit is about a bible they put out.



First, I found his early discussion on the nature of political debate being mostly a conflict of wills, of experiences, and how that's not helpful. It's the breakdown of real argument.

So, the way past that is to refuse to cooperate in that verbal violence. don't make it will vs will, experience vs experience. Appeal to values in common, e.g. propose various objective values. A few posters are better than others at this, but I see many try. It really does sum up where political talk goes bad, without directly criticizing that.

Later it gets into Catholic teaching, and politics. Somewhat lightly, since the main idea is that they'll never tell you who to vote for, and the truth is, neither party bats 1000 with the church, so both are generally equally valid.

I thought it was an interesting chat.

I've caught a few other chats with him that are good. He makes an interesting point about the Church having a high bar of expectations, but also lavishly gives divine mercy when we fail.

 

[JimEverett]

First and foremost, my main point was that we act off of our emotions more than our philosophies. There are racists who believe in moral relativism and there are racists who believe in objective truth. That wouldn't happen if philosophical belief was the primary determinant of behavior.

If someone is being racist, there's an underlying, unaddressed emotional issue in play. Same is true if someone is exerting power over others. You can convince someone to believe in moral relativism or objective truth, but they will not change their actual behavior towards themselves and others if they remain emotionally unaware of themselves.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't treat others with respect, tolerance, empathy and compassion because of any objective truth. I treat people that way, because it's my truth and it always will be. Even if someone objectively proved to me that objective truth says that's not how I should treat people, I still would. If some god appeared before me and said I would be cursed for an eternity unless I treated people differently, I'd tell that god to eff the hell right off.

Supposedly our society believes in the objective truth that everyone is endowed by some creator with inalienable rights, yet here we are as a society that committed genocide, slavery and still has a problem with systemic racism to this day. All of that happened and started long before moral relativism was around.

How has the relatively new philosophy of moral relativism been any more problematic and a contributing factor to American genocide, slavery and systemic racism, than the philosophy of objective truth has historically been? The answer, again, is that any problem stemming from those philosophies lies not within the philosophies themselves, but within those who subscribe to and allegedly practice those philosophies.

Our social and political problems come from tragic lack of emotional awareness and competency. much more so than they do from any lack of intellectual, ideological or philosophical competency.

Moral relativsim as an idea has been around since at least Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic - it's not a new idea.
Having said that, I do agree that a lot of the bad events in world and American history have been done with the idea that they were being done in the name of the good - an objective good.
But that statement - that "a lot of bad events have happened" seems to presuppose an objective standard with which to judge those actions.

But that is a different matter than the point I made above. I think there are some problems with the idea of objective moral truth. But that doesn't erase the problem that a relativist must deal with the idea that some very horrible things being good can be true and that his belief necessitates them being true.

 

[DaveXA]

Moral relativsim as an idea has been around since at least Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic - it's not a new idea.
Having said that, I do agree that a lot of the bad events in world and American history have been done with the idea that they were being done in the name of the good - an objective good.
But that statement - that "a lot of bad events have happened" seems to presuppose an objective standard with which to judge those actions.

But that is a different matter than the point I made above. I think there are some problems with the idea of objective moral truth. But that doesn't erase the problem that a relativist must deal with the idea that some very horrible things being good can be true and that his belief necessitates them being true.

Yeah, I was gonna chime in and say that relativism is hardly new, but you got that covered.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

This was a much better read/discussion than I was expecting. Thanks!

 

[SystemShock]

I understand the idea that a belief that there is no objective truth does not equate to a belief that there is no truth.
If there does not exist "objective truth" and there does exist "relative truth" and/or "individual truth" then the fact that a culture or subset of a culture and/or an individual believes "racism is good" or "pedophilia is good" or "making 8 year olds work 12 hours day in a factory is good" means that racism, . . ., etc is good. Now you might say that it is good only relative to x, y, z, etc. But it is still good.
That seems problematic to me.

Every example you mention is a construct of how human societies have evolved throughout the centuries. None of what you mention is "good" or "bad" in on its own, without a society/individual viewing it against some arbitrary/agreed upon standard.

An objective truth is neither good nor bad, it just is. It is us who assign a subjective rating to it.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Moral relativism as an idea has been around since at least Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic - it's not a new idea.
Having said that, I do agree that a lot of the bad events in world and American history have been done with the idea that they were being done in the name of the good - an objective good.
But that statement - that "a lot of bad events have happened" seems to presuppose an objective standard with which to judge those actions.

But that is a different matter than the point I made above. I think there are some problems with the idea of objective moral truth. But that doesn't erase the problem that a relativist must deal with the idea that some very horrible things being good can be true and that his belief necessitates them being true.

There's a difference between the idea of moral relativism and the formal, modern philosophy of moral relativism. The general ideas have been around for centuries, but those ideas didn't gain real attention and develop into a formal philosophy until the 1900's. When most people refer to moral relativism they are referring to the modern moral relativism philosophical movement of the 1900's. The historical background section of this webpage explains it well.

Moral Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Objective truth has been the prevailing philosophy followed by American culture and government and it has clearly allowed for and directly contributed to all of those "bad events" of American genocide, slavery and continual systemic racism.

So again, how has believing in objective truth been any less problematic than moral relativism?

Things can be labeled as bad from a subjective standard too. There doesn't need to be an objective truth for people to see something as bad. Bad is actually a very subjective concept and value judgment.

You keep imposing objective truth standards onto a moral relativism paradigm. In a pure, moral relativistic paradigm nothing is judged as good or bad. So no, a relativist doesn't have to deal with or admit to what you say. You are judging one philosophical paradigm with standards from an opposing paradigm.

All analogies are flawed to some degree or another, so this analogy isn't perfect. Basically you are saying a person who sees the world in color must deal with the idea that by seeing the color red they change the color of red to black or gray, and that them seeing in colors necessitates the color red being changed to black or gray. A person who sees the world in color sees red as red. If you only see the world in black and white, then red can only be seen as black or gray.

 

[Ayo]

You're not incorrect. But the Greek origin, and thus the latin and our own usage does indeed seem to rely on logos.

I don’t see how this is correct. You make the claim and then say that it does mean “to speak” and then talk about loaded language which is very vague and then you make a reference to Christ and the Word of God but this seems to be applied post-facto.

I don’t follow your logic here at all. The chronology seems off and more a matter of convenience legitimated but “take my word” for it than actual validation.

ultimately I think you can make your point, which you eventually get to, without requiring an etymological approach that isnt really valid and doesn’t, even if clearly applicable, illuminate your point.

Setting aside the need to make this Judeo-Christian centric is also more in keeping with the discussion of absolute truths that exist prior to those religious traditions and mankind’s attempts to divine them.

 

[Brennan77]

I don’t see how this is correct. You make the claim and then say that it does mean “to speak” and then talk about loaded language which is very vague and then you make a reference to Christ and the Word of God but this seems to be applied post-facto.

I don’t follow your logic here at all. The chronology seems off and more a matter of convenience legitimated but “take my word” for it than actual validation.

ultimately I think you can make your point, which you eventually get to, without requiring an etymological approach that isnt really valid and doesn’t, even if clearly applicable, illuminate your point.

Setting aside the need to make this Judeo-Christian centric is also more in keeping with the discussion of absolute truths that exist prior to those religious traditions and mankind’s attempts to divine them.

I think you are mistaking my intention. I am not meaning to make this specifically judeo christian. My point in looking at the word dialogue and it's relation to logos was simply to illustrate what I mean. Mentioning that Christ is referred to as Logos is simply to say that the word, in the last 2000 years takes on more of an intentional and active function as it relates to truth than to simply mean 'to speak'. Within the context of discussions such as politics, dialogue assumes certain criteria such as the assumption of the existence of truth along with good faith among participants. Without these qualities, we are in danger of abusing language and each other.

That's really the only point I am making with regard to the word dialogue. Etymology aside, I'd still make the argument that in the event you do not understand the word in this way, it ought to be practiced with the qualities I propose.

 

[JimEverett]

So again, how has believing in objective truth been any less problematic than moral relativism?

I don't necessarily disagree with you here - as I siad above - I think thee have been a great deal of horrible acts done in the name of "the good" - and done by people who were true believers in the eternal rightness of their actions.

Things can be labeled as bad from a subjective standard too. There doesn't need to be an objective truth for people to see something as bad. Bad is actually a very subjective concept and value judgment.

You keep imposing objective truth standards onto a moral relativism paradigm. In a pure, moral relativistic paradigm nothing is judged as good or bad. So no, a relativist doesn't have to deal with or admit to what you say. You are judging one philosophical paradigm with standards from an opposing paradigm.

This might be where I am getting confused with what you are saying.
On the one hand you are you saying that things can be "bad from a subjective standard too" - I agree, that has been my point with the moral judgments of things like racism, pedophilia, etc. But then you say that "In a pure moral relativistic paradigm nothing is judged as good or bad." That seems contradictory.

The way I am thinking of a "relativistic paradigm" is that morality is judged by a standard relative to . . . - an individual, or a culture at large, or a sub-culture, etc. I don't understand how a relativist could look, say, at the morality of the United States and claim that the intentional, unjustified, taking of another life is neither good or bad.

 

[insidejob]

That's fair. I think I'm coming to it right to left and you're coming at it right to left (not politically but down the path of thought), but we are probably ending up in the same place.

But the left is right.

 

[insidejob]

“Logos” is not the root in question. The Greek is “legien” which means to speak

Hold up. I thought the Greek root of logos is meaning. I'm just going from what I've studied of Victor Frankl's logotherapy though.

IE: Frankl believed that humans are motivated by something called a "will to meaning," which corresponds to a desire to seek and make meaning in life. . “Inasmuch as logotherapy makes him aware of the hidden logos of his existence, it is an analytical process”

 

[DaveXA]

But the left is right.

So does that mean the the right is left?

 

[insidejob]

So does that mean the the right is left?

Hopefully left behind.

 

[Ayo]

I think you are mistaking my intention. I am not meaning to make this specifically judeo christian. My point in looking at the word dialogue and it's relation to logos was simply to illustrate what I mean. Mentioning that Christ is referred to as Logos is simply to say that the word, in the last 2000 years takes on more of an intentional and active function as it relates to truth than to simply mean 'to speak'. Within the context of discussions such as politics, dialogue assumes certain criteria such as the assumption of the existence of truth along with good faith among participants. Without these qualities, we are in danger of abusing language and each other.

That's really the only point I am making with regard to the word dialogue. Etymology aside, I'd still make the argument that in the event you do not understand the word in this way, it ought to be practiced with the qualities I propose.

I don’t understand the word “dialogue” as being inextricably linked to truth.

and I still don’t see any justification other than “it means something different now” but you cited the Greek etymology.

it Ends up being convoluted and inhibits meaning and understanding.

I think this is a worn topic that isnt going to go anywhere but the reason I mention it is because it illustrates the point I made earlier about language.

you’re pressing some argument about a word’s meaning ex post facto but suggesting the origins of the word had some implication.

I’m still not sure the relevance of the origin to your definition. If you’re going to talk about how it colloquially evolved, then what does the origin do for your argument?

Just say that dialogue requires some truth or in order to avoid bad faith (I can have a dialogue with the intent to distort or deceive) it has to aspire toward truth.

that’s all you need.

instead we’re hammering it out over a root of a word and we can’t agree on that. So where do we go from there for the actual word?

personally, I have “dialogue” all the time that isnt a pirsuit of truth, which is more than merely being honest. I dont see how “truth” or truth seeking is a de facto prerequisite for “dialogue”

then again I am on record as being skeptical of some objective, ideal truth. And even if there was, I have no faith in myself to define it.

i realize I’m belaboring the point but I think it’s a good example of how language, itself, makes so much of this difficult. And if there is a truth, it’s beyond language To adequately describe it. Maybe we can intuit it on some level. But I’m skeptical of having it explained to me.

 

[Ayo]

Hold up. I thought the Greek root of logos is meaning. I'm just going from what I've studied of Victor Frankl's logotherapy though.

“logos” can mean meaning in terms of plan or purpose. It can mean reason (eg pathos, logos, ethos). Word.

again, there’s a layer of hermeneutics even here which I think speaks to my point. If our language can be so slippery and there can be so much unspoken knowledge needed to understand a translated word or phrase, how can we explain the/an objective truth in the same way?

I was pointing out that despite the various interpretations of “logos” it is not the root of “dialogue”. The Greek root is a totally different word from “logos”

 

[Ayo]

This was a much better read/discussion than I was expecting. Thanks!

when JE starts waxing philosophically, I get all giddy like a schoolgirl

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

when JE starts waxing philosophically, I get all giddy like a schoolgirl

Yeah, although I usually have to keep out and just read because he has obviously read a whole lot more than I have and understands it at a level I don't. But reading everyone's posts on it is a lot of fun.

 

[insidejob]

again, there’s a layer of hermeneutics even here which I think speaks to my point. If our language can be so slippery and there can be so much unspoken knowledge needed to understand a translated word or phrase, how can we explain the/an objective truth in the same way?

I couldn't agree more.

Even within Christianity based religions, people can't agree on what to take literally and what it means to be a Christian. I gave up on White Jesus Christianity a long time ago but found just as much contradiction and chaos in the different schools of Buddhism - mainly Mahayana (supposedly the greater vehicle) vs Hinayana (supposedly the lesser vehicle). Theravada Buddhism is Hinayana which relies solely on the teachings that came straight from the Buddha's mouth/teachings, so how is that a "lesser vehicle?" It was obviously given that name by the Mahayanan teachers. And don't even get me started on Zen.

All of us have our own "objective" truth based on our own feelings and experiences. Doesn't matter how much you pray or meditate on something, to be completely objective would require dissolving into the ether - and we're all still here.

So, for a Catholic priest or bishop or whatever to want to teach anything about what objective truth is based on his understanding of it when, in my experience, objective truth isn't something Catholics are really concerned with (outside of the Jesuits and the Christian Brothers) I just don't really want to hear it based on MY experience. And that's fine. To each his own. If it makes people feel better watching that video, great! There are hundreds of ways to get through the day, you just have to find one.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I don't necessarily disagree with you here - as I siad above - I think thee have been a great deal of horrible acts done in the name of "the good" - and done by people who were true believers in the eternal rightness of their actions.



This might be where I am getting confused with what you are saying.
On the one hand you are you saying that things can be "bad from a subjective standard too" - I agree, that has been my point with the moral judgments of things like racism, pedophilia, etc. But then you say that "In a pure moral relativistic paradigm nothing is judged as good or bad." That seems contradictory.

The way I am thinking of a "relativistic paradigm" is that morality is judged by a standard relative to . . . - an individual, or a culture at large, or a sub-culture, etc. I don't understand how a relativist could look, say, at the morality of the United States and claim that the intentional, unjustified, taking of another life is neither good or bad.

I meant to say that "nothing is judged as objectively good or bad." My mistake there did create an internal contradiction and confusion. When people evaluate things as good or bad, those determinations stem from the individuals subjectivity, not an objective truth.

Another thing I forgot to make clear is that I subscribe to a philosophical take on moral relativism which deviates from the mainstream view. In my opinion moral and immoral; good and bad; and right and wrong are all subjective value judgements, so nothing is ever objectively any of those things. I don't accept anything as objective truth unless I see objectively observable evidence of it. The objective truth is that the sun rises in the direction it rise, that direction being "east" is entirely subjective, as language is both arbitrary and subjective. Calling a chair a chair doesn't make the thing we call a chair what it is. It would still be exactly what it is even if we all started calling it a fish.

My intention with my take on moral relativism is to personally strive not to judge or determine anyone or anything to be objectively moral or immoral; good or bad; or right or wrong. In my experience those absolute value judgements stifle society and individuals much more than they foster an environment in which societies and individuals can thrive, by my standards of what it means to thrive. One of the things they stifle to most is empathy. Without empathy there is no understanding. Without understanding there can be no tolerance and cooperation. Without tolerance and cooperation society becomes dysfunctional and diseased. Just look around our society and species for ample evidence of that.