Does "dictatorship of relativism" exist?

[VetLegion]

It seems that pope Benedict said we are expiriencing a dictatorship of relativism.

Isn't relativism = tolerance?

So this guy wants less tolerance?

Or did I get something wrong? Please keep responses to under million words that philosophical debates get

[General Ludd]

Re: Does "dictatorship of relativism" exist?

Originally posted by VetLegion

So this guy wants less tolerance?

Probably.


He is the pope, afterall.

[Agathon]

He's right. Relativism is increasingly the default position of many people.

[Immortal Wombat]

Re: Does "dictatorship of relativism" exist?

Originally posted by VetLegion
So this guy wants less tolerance?

Yes. Less tolerance of those who do not adhere strictly to the absolute morality of the Lord.

[Agathon]

But relativism doesn't yield tolerance either. Under moral relativism "tolerance" becomes just another one of the relative values.

Relativism only helps conservatives. How ironic.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Agathon
He's right. Relativism is increasingly the default position of many people.

Is this bad?

I can't decide for myself, that's how relative I am

[Agathon]

Is this bad?

Only if force or rhetoric are better ways of persuading people than reason.

[Agathon]

But religious conservatives have a very special meaning for relativism. They mean liberal society, not relativism per se.

Liberal society is not relativist: it holds to a version of the good whereby the best overall outcome is achieved by allowing people freedom to pursue their own vision of the good in limited ways (usually as long as they don't harm others).

The moral principle: "you may do as you like as long as you do not harm others" is adhered to by liberalism as firmly as any absolutist pronouncement of the church.

Hence there is nothing wrong in liberalism with compelling the intolerant to mind their own business.

What the religious don't like is that it virtually bans religious lawmaking, since most of the things that religious morality deals with are matters of private choice under liberalism.

Hence they fallaciously try to conflate liberalism with an "anything goes" philosophy.

They are helped in this task by many people in contemporary society who falsely regard liberalism as an "anything goes" philosophy.

[Dracon II]

Relativism is a postmodern dead-end.... it's no way to hold a society together.... and it's certainly not the creed of Liberals. Holding that all values are valid is one way of saying there are no values. Mind you, there is a correlation between relativism and market values... but it's more of a metaphorical relationship.

Good to see we have a potential reformer in the church

[Dracon II]

What the religious don't like is that it virtually bans religious lawmaking, since most of the things that religious morality deals with are matters of private choice under liberalism.

Indeed. Liberals adhere to a pluralist principle of social organisation, which means they adhere to a certain level of religious and cultural relativism.... but this is symptomatic of their overriding ethical principles and values rather than a descent into the kind of pure relativism that conservatives rail against. Liberals have limits to tolerance as well... they're just a bit more... liberal

You'll probably find more relativists at a realpolitik convention than a liberal one... because it opens the door for the legitimacy of nothing but pure power.

[Voltaire]

Ratzinger (I’ve gotten used to calling him that, it will take a while before I can call him Pope Benedict XVI) intends to free us from the ‘dictatorship of relativism’ and replace it with the ‘dictatorship of absolutism’.

[Agathon]

You'll probably find more relativists at a realpolitik convention than a liberal one... because it opens the door for the legitimacy of nothing but pure power.

Yep.

It's also why religious people are at war with society. Liberalism cannot tolerate their intolerance on a conceptual level, although in practice we often manage to fudge it. With the way things are now it's my contention that it's suppression time.

They have to be told they are wrong, and that they have no rights that transcend liberalism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You'll probably find more relativists at a realpolitik convention than a liberal one... because it opens the door for the legitimacy of nothing but pure power.

I dunno... you'll find a lot of cultural relativists on college campuses, railing against the destruction of local cultures and practices, even if they, themselves, would hate to have that practice be a part of their own culture.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Agathon
But religious conservatives have a very special meaning for relativism. They mean liberal society, not relativism per se.

Liberal society is not relativist: it holds to a version of the good whereby the best overall outcome is achieved by allowing people freedom to pursue their own vision of the good in limited ways (usually as long as they don't harm others).

The moral principle: "you may do as you like as long as you do not harm others" is adhered to by liberalism as firmly as any absolutist pronouncement of the church.

Hence there is nothing wrong in liberalism with compelling the intolerant to mind their own business.

What the religious don't like is that it virtually bans religious lawmaking, since most of the things that religious morality deals with are matters of private choice under liberalism.

Hence they fallaciously try to conflate liberalism with an "anything goes" philosophy.

They are helped in this task by many people in contemporary society who falsely regard liberalism as an "anything goes" philosophy.

[Dinner]

I don't know anyone who believes all moral values are equal. I've never heard anyone advocate that idea either other then one far out poster here at poly. I think what he's rail against is everyone who doesn't agree with his values.