The Impact of 'Moral Relativism' On Society — David R. Hawkins

[eTorro]

Hello.

I've come across a fascinating topic in a great book (Transcending the Levels of Consciousness) written by David. R. Hawkins.

Quote

"Moral relativism is the belief that defining right and wrong is an individual and personal choice. Denying the presence of absolute law, this ideology teaches that every decision is a matter of personal feeling.

Moral relativism means that adultery, for example, is not objectively wrong. While I may believe that adultery is wrong and that it destroys marriages, you are entitled to believe it is right and strengthens a marriage. The same reasoning applies to murder, stealing, pedophilia, and every other facet of human life. With this ideology, there is no absolute definition of right and wrong— only what you perceive to be right and wrong.

This distorted principle has made great inroads into our universities. Created by secularists, moral relativism is a by-product of the evolutionist theory, which itself permeates university culture, especially the sciences. By denying the existence of God, the theory of evolution sowed the seeds of moral relativism. If there is no God, secularists reason, then there is no absolute law.

Using moral relativism as their weapon, liberal secularists can destroy any absolute law they desire. Even the laws that govern society can be destroyed. Most people recognize that American law, ideology, and morals are essentially governed by Judeo-Christian belief in the Ten Commandments. Since there is no God, according to secularists, then all we have are ten Suggestions; there is no law. With no absolute laws, defining right and wrong is a strictly personal matter.

This is why Ward Churchill, Harris Mirkin, and other secularist faculty members can espouse such ideologies as anti-Americanism and pedophilia. If a person doesn’t believe in absolute law, then he or she is not required to believe that pedophilia is wrong. Moral relativism destroys the law that defines right and wrong, moral and immoral.

These are a few examples of the immorality and moral relativism that pervade our universities. The idea that it is the individual’s responsibility to decide right and wrong is firmly entrenched in the minds of today’s university students."

While I'm not against people who believe in moral relativism (everyone is entitled to his or her own perspective), personally, I don't think 'moral relativism' is good for the individual, civilization, and society at large.

What are your thoughts on moral relativism?

Edited October 19, 2022 by eTorro
To remove unnecessary blank rows.

[Leo Gura]

All morality is a human invention.

God is Absolute Relativity.

If there was right and wrong, God could not be Infinite Love.

What kind of God would create wrongness? Wrongness can only be the invention of a selfish and finite mind.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Leo Gura

[eTorro]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

All morality is a human invention.

God is Absolute Relativity.

If there was right and wrong, God could not be Infinite Love.

Fair enough, @Leo Gura.

I would like to know if there's a benefit or an advantage to guiding civilization and society at large based on moral relativism.

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, eTorro said:

Fair enough, @Leo Gura.

I would like to know if there's a benefit or an advantage to guiding civilization and society at large based on moral relativism.

When you truly understand relativity, you will discover a compassion and Love with no bottom.

You should note how many humans have been killed in the name of non-relativistic morality.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Phil777]

This is the standard argument for God based on moral necessity perpetrated by stage blue Christians. And this is coming from Hawkins? I have been resonating less and less with his teachings lately. In his book "Success is for you" he rants for like 10 pages that a restaurant didn't have the sauce he likes lol.

[Leo Gura]

Boomers gonna Boom.

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Phil777 said:

he rants for like 10 pages that a restaurant didn't have the sauce he likes lol.

Lol, I was reading that segment a few weeks ago

[Jodistrict]

2 hours ago, Phil777 said:

This is the standard argument for God based on moral necessity perpetrated by stage blue Christians. And this is coming from Hawkins? I have been resonating less and less with his teachings lately. In his book "Success is for you" he rants for like 10 pages that a restaurant didn't have the sauce he likes lol.

Agreed.  He is summarizing what use to be the standard view and he uses the term “Ant-Americanism”.  It’s interesting that he uses “Ward Churchill” as an example of moral relativism.   But Ward Churchill has spent his career exposing the genocide inflicted on the indigenous people of the Americas.  This is a good example of what happens when a dogma is setup and claimed to be a moral system.  The constructed system is the real example of "relativism”.   Great evil can be considered moral according to the definition constructed.  Also, at a more nuanced level, some rules are necessary to regulate and guide stupid people.     

[Heart of Space]

People justify some very stupid things with moral relativism due to a foundational ignorance.  

I think for the sheep, a well thought out dogma works well.  Just don't dress it up in fairy tales and tell everyone the earth is 6000 years old.  

[Ulax]

I think moral relativism can be misused. I.e. people say because everything is a matter of perspective we should do X, without acknowledging that 'we should do x' is still only a perspective. I think Bertrand Russell makes a useful critique of some moral relativist theories.

I don't really understand why people don't just talk about it in terms of Nihilism.

I get the sense that David Hawkin's hasn't deeply thought about what he's written here, and is caught firmly within ideology. It also appears to me that he is claiming that moral relativists in saying something is objectively wrong, are therefore saying that its okay to do that thing, i.e. paedophilia. Which doesn't seem to me to be the case.

[Leo Gura]

17 hours ago, nuwu said:

is relativity fundamental? or is it one out of the infinite potentialities of awareness only relevant to the reality we found ourselves in?

In order to have multiple "realities" -- as you say -- relativity is needed.

Everything you know is relative to the "reality" you're in.

Infinity is Absolute Relativity. That's what gives it its diversity and multiplicity. It can be any way it wants. There is no right or wrong that governs God, because if there were, God would be limited and not Absolute.

God must be an absolutely sovereign mind. Which means nothing outside itself can limit it. So if God wants to be a rapist, that must be allowed. Because who would stop God? If there exists something beyond God that could stop God, God would not be God, that thing would be God. But what would stop that thing from being a rapist if it wanted to? And so you see that God must be unlimited in every possible way. If God decides that rape is good, that's literally what it is.

But of course, the kicker is, God's You. 

If you decide that rape is good, you'll become a rapist. And if you decide that rape is bad, you won't. Ta-DAAA!

From the Universe's POV, there literally does not exist anyone to tell you if rape is good or bad, but you!

This is what these stupid Christians don't fathom. Because the Christian wants to be able to judge you. And the truth is that you can't judge anything, because everything is Love! Fucking Duh! How stupid can you be?? 

Edited October 21, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Tyler Robinson]

Is God real? Does God exists? Who is God? 

 

[Tyler Robinson]

I cannot believe in universal morality because it takes away individual freedom. 

Lots of questions here - 

How does universal morality support my individual freedom? 

Which society has operated on universal morality when almost every society has used moral relativism to survive? 

Why is everyone opposed to moral relativism? 

Isn't Christianity already a great moral foundation for humanity? 

Aren't Christians moral people? 

What appears moral to you might not appear moral to me, how do you dispute this? 

 

Edited October 21, 2022 by Tyler Robinson

[eTorro]

On 10/20/2022 at 0:27 AM, Phil777 said:

This is the standard argument for God based on moral necessity perpetrated by stage blue Christians. And this is coming from Hawkins? I have been resonating less and less with his teachings lately. In his book "Success is for you" he rants for like 10 pages that a restaurant didn't have the sauce he likes lol.

David R. Hawkins continues by saying the following:

Quote

The combination of reason, logic, and education is a solid counterbalance to offset the pressures of the primitive narcissistic core of the ego that feels threatened by the higher values of personal and social integrity.

An enemy of rationality is the self-servingness of narcissism itself, which warps and distorts reason to facilitate its own ends.

At lower levels of consciousness, the mind is merely used as another weapon to enforce positionalities, control others, and allow for the acting out of rationalized animal instincts.

The reason of the intellect can be distorted as rhetoric to serve emotional, egoistic goals rather than those that are integrous (e.g., the philosophies of relativism [cal. 180], or Marxism [cal. 130]). The distortion of truth to subserve positionalized agendas is characteristic of Lower (ego) Mind rather than Higher Mind (see Overview, Section II).

Lower mind substitutes narcissistic intellectualization for the disciplined dialectic of logical truth.

Furthermore, David R. Hawkins notes:

Quote

It is also notable that the current Pope, upon taking office, declared that the foremost problem threatening the world is that of moral relativism, which replaces Divinity by declaring the sovereignty of the narcissistic ego.

‘Thinkingness’ is merely random mentation, whereas reason is constrained by the dialectics, discipline, and limitations of the rules of logic, which are well represented by mathematics.

Lower Mind is less evolved and characteristic of children, immaturity, and lack of education. In its more primitive condition, mentalization subserves emotionalities and personalized needs and wants. Thus, Lower Mind subserves communication of subjective states or opinions, which are not in the same category as the mental constructions of Higher Mind that are intended to represent more objective, verifiable statements that therebyrequire higher standards of validity or proof. Thus, Lower Mind is ruled by ‘wants’, and Higher Mind is disciplined by accountability that requires adherence to standards of truth, with concomitant requirements of ethics and responsibility.

Thus, the downside of the intellect is that it is subject to the distortions consequent to naïveté and wishful thinking that subvert meaning to narcissism (e.g., “A word means just what I choose it to mean,” says Humpty Dumpty in Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass).

Falsification of reason is indicative of non integrity and is also a primary characteristic of psychopathic personality traits.

Is David R. Hawkins wrong? I would like to know your thoughts on this.

Edited October 21, 2022 by eTorro

[eTorro]

On 10/20/2022 at 11:19 AM, Ulax said:

I think Bertrand Russell makes a useful critique of some moral relativist theories.

Quote

"Historically, the great empires thus crumble from within by moral decay." — David. R Hawkins

Indeed.

[Ulax]

44 minutes ago, eTorro said:

Indeed.

@eTorro Hey dude, I'm not sure what you were trying to get across to me. Would you be willing to rephrase?

[Leo Gura]

For sure relativism can be abused by the ego. But so can moral absolutism.

Whatever moral system you have, it is an invention, and no two people will agree on it.

Edited October 21, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Phil777]

9 hours ago, eTorro said:

David R. Hawkins continues by saying the following:

Furthermore, David R. Hawkins notes:

Is David R. Hawkins wrong? I would like to know your thoughts on this.

Now... these are more nuanced points.

Hawkins is actually strongly arguing for an objective, shared reality which "overrules" subjective experience. So very much in line with standard materialistic notions.

He determines the prioritization of one's personal intuitions, feelings and perceptions as narcissistic whereas the adherence to "standards of truth" ,especially logic as understood through mathematics, to be an act of the higher mind.

I honestly don't have a deep enough grasp of math or formal logic to evaluate this statement.

But I would say that my direct experience confirms this. If you want to develop, live a good life and skillfully navigate this reality we occupy, you cannot be lost in a narcissistic dream and make shit up but need to adhere to the rules of logic, reason and most importantly truth - which in my and also Leo's opinion is something far greater than mere logic. Truth is greater than logic, proof and reason.

Hawkins simply assumes that his version of God is required for us to be moral and ethical (which is completely unfalsifiable and fantastical). He then goes on to dismiss any action based on subjective feelings and intuitions (if done by moral relativists to satisfy their needs, wants and desires).

He simply equates ones desires with "primitive animal instincts" that ought to be suppressed and transcended, subdued for the greater good of social cohesion. I completely disagree with this line of thinking. ...again such a regressive, repressive, dark age, Christian notion.

Your desires, your deepest yearnings and cravings are your key to unlocking your greatest potential in my experience. I am glad I dismiss the social matrix and follow my heart. It makes me ten times more happy. And I can do so without dismissing science, formal logic or mathematics. 

He paints this false dichotomy between the noble, disciplined light warrior of truth who is humble and a servant of reason and progress vs. The narcissistic, self absorbed ego that is just out for itself and willing to lie, bend and twist to get it's evil, shameful desires satisfied.

Like, you can just drop some good old atheist debunks on this bs: why did God give us all these desires then? Is he "testing" us? Or is he just playing games? And why are these desires and their fulfillment in opposite to the pursuit of morality and ethics? Maybe my desire is to be moral af? Spoiler: it is.

I am vegan and get great joy out of reducing suffering through this choice. No kidding, it's great. So why is it that my "evil, selfish impulses" guide me to act selflessly? Hmm, could it be that if you get in touch with your true desires, beyond all the conditioning and trauma, we humans just want great shit for everyone? Great health, great stuff, freedom, expansion, growth, safety and most importantly - love. Isn't that what morality tries to ensure? No problem, we humans intrinsically want all this already. No limiting belief system required.

 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Phil777