RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism.

To be fair, you must admit that neither religion nor reason provide sufficient grounds for morality. Religion is seldom black and white. The very fact that you a member of a church that is but one of many offshoots of "Christianity" makes this point more than clear. While you state that reason cannot get past the individual, you fail to mention that religion often has the same restrictions. At best, religion makes it to the group level. But soon enough that group gets too big and splits. So, much like relativism, churches reason on their interpretations of encounters with their higher source.

So, while I agree with your statements about reasoning morality, I disagree that religion is any better. Your religion is only a source of morality because you say it is, not because your god told me. Until your god removes the doubt, I must assume that you are statistically likely to be incorrect about your god, simply given the total number of interpretations by various groups and individuals of what their god deems moral.

In the end, both systems of defining morality are hindered by the same thing: human perceptions.

Even though I am a devout Christian (Just a sinner saved by Grace!), I was very careful to avoid any sort of theism in my comment, save perhaps my commentary on evolution. I agree with you about the 'abuse of the system', and I will tell you right now that abuse of the 'system' still goes on. Case in point: Fred Phelps. Using him as an example, he has forgotten that God loves us all, he hates Sin..but loves us all. We can all cite many examples, from the KKK, to Radical Islam, etc. The abuse still happens. There are theological reasons why, but that's off topic.

As to Moral Relativism not being taught in the public school system, I beg to differ. My son (5th grade) was in a teacher-led discussion based on a story they read in class. The class discussion concluded it was ok for the child in the story to steal food because he was hungry and the police were wrong for arresting him. The apalling fact is that the teacher actually told my son his thinking was backward when he stood his ground and said stealing of any kind is wrong. Her words to him were merely that there are exceptions to every law.

I now have a very confused 11 year old, who I (and my ex-wife) are trying to raise to at least have some idea of right and wrong. He has an idea that things aren't so black and white. We're both trying to ensure that he understands that things *are* clear-cut, and there are systems set up to handle the misfortunate. In this affair, unfortunately, my ex- won't stand up to the school system and rebut the teacher's viewpoint. Since I'm the non-custodial parent; I have no say, so I can't get involved at the level I would like to.

I have spoken at length with many parents, and even respected (both Christian and Non-Christian alike) parenting and eductation 'experts' over the years on how schools have changed. Most feel that the schools should be doing more to enforce an idea of right and wrong. The curriculum of the system does little to teach right from wrong, and in fact quite often it teaches that certain actions are 'just fine' depending on the circumstances. Stealing is wrong--I don't care about the reason, it is still wrong. If (as in the story my child read) you are truly hungry, and ask and are denied, then the person who denies you food is committing just as heinous a wrong as you. If you want to look at it from a Christian standpoint, you look at Matthew 22:36-40:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All of the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

The person who fails to serve the one less fortunate is just as great a sinner, (for failing to act out of love) in the eyes of God.

To put it in a non-theological view: the action of failing to help those less fortunate is morally reprehensible. This does not mean doing everything for them, but rather enabling them to be self-sufficient--barring any impediments to doing so.

It is a misstep to attempt to step outside of the frame of reference of individuality to find moral values. If morality cannot be determined by individuals, it is likewise impossible for individuals to determine what "greater" moral law ought to be followed by them.

A more scientific approach to ethics might lead one to notice that individual response to certain behaviors is intrinsic in that some are sought out again and some are avoided, pretty much regardless of cultural or social context. From such universal individual reactions, one can infer a general principle of human valuation that unites the various behaviors and use that principle to derive and extrapolate to behavior in more complex dilemmas.

Bigger in what sense? What should guide us to chose what defines our moral code? In order to decide that something should be used as a base for morality we still need to say why, and it seems like that entails some other preexisting value system.

I've been away and didn't get a chance to reply to this. I'm the anonymous poster of the "Schools don't teach moral relativism" thread.

I disagree that "something bigger" than the individual is necessary. The problem with that line of thought is that whatever the "something bigger" might be, it's not sufficient. Even if you accept the idea that a deity exists and has outlined some moral code, you must still make a moral judgement as to whether those laws themselves are "good". You can't pass the buck on that decision.

So, when it comes down to it, the only thing around that can define morality is the individual. Nothing else is adequate to the task, since the individual must still make the moral decision of accepting that moral code.

And of course, this doesn't mean that "there is no way for one's morality to apply to anyone but themselves." It's extremely likely that there will be substantial areas in which people can come to common agreement on moral behavior. If we share common goals or must cooperate to share common resources, then we have incentive to seek agreement on a shared morality for the "important" things.

It's pretty easy to see that if I were to go around killing off my neighbors, they'd eventually come to the conclusion that I was too dangerous to have around and likely kill me off. We all want to be safe from random violence, so we agree - I promise not to kill you in exchange for your promise not to kill me. Same with stealing. Same with pretty much all morality that isn't just an arbitrary superstition.

Theists have a hard time seeing that morality can exist without a deity because there's so much "immorality" among the godless. But if you look at the kind of immorality, you'll see that the main "sins" of the godless are the superstitions - "blasphemy", sexual relations that aren't approved by the church, that sort of thing. The godless don't run around committing murder or theft at a noticeably higher rate than the faithful do.

So, no - there's no "greater reference" by which a law can be judged moral. Conscience must come from within.

Frankly, as I see it, morality which derives from monotheistic faith is of a pretty shabby sort. If you act in a "moral" way because you want to gain the reward of Heaven or avoid the punishment of Hell, then it's hard to see how you're being "moral" at all - you're simply acting in your own best interest as you perceive it.