Intellectuelle

Good post. I see what you mean. And I think too that if we aren't sure what is right it is "right" to say "I'm not sure" rather than "do what is right for you". I mean things like when some-one asks "should I buy into this business or not" - and I really can't advise them on their financial investment. Yet it is a moral decision in a way - stewardship. But saying "do what is right for you" would be relativistic because I think people know their own situations and can use objective standards to guide those decisions. And then there are things - the things I think you are mostly referring to - that are clear cut.

There's some sense in which we should do what we think is right, though. If you believe something to be wrong, and you do it anyway, it's sin. That's true even if it's not in itself wrong. Paul assumes this when he tells us not to do what will lead others to stumble, even when the thing they would be stumbling in isn't really wrong.

One of the issues here is whether we can be blamed for thinking it's ok. In some cases, we can't. If I get flowers for my wife not knowing that this rare species will cause her to break out in a serious rash, then that's bad. But it's not a morally wrong act, because I couldn't have known that this particular species would cause her to react this way. Ignorance in such cases is an excuse.

In other cases, it's certainly not. If my kids are playing in my driveway, and I back my car in and run one of them over, I am at fault. I deserve to be blamed for not looking. I knew they were around, and I didn't look back to see if they were in back of the car, so my ignorance is blameworthy.

I don't think the kind of statement you're talking about is necessarily relativism. Technically, it wouldn't be relativism anyway but subjectivism. Relativism says that what's right is what your culture says is right. Subjectivism says that moral status depends on your own internal sense of rightness and wrongness. You're talking about subjectivism here.

But I don't think the kind of statement we're discussing is necessarily either relativism or subjectivism. With relativism and subjectivism, whether it's right depends on something about you or your culture. But I think a lot of this is about how easily we think ignorance can be a good excuse. We might think it's wrong but be way too willing to excuse it because of ignorance of what's right. Someone's internal concept of right and wrong misleads them into doing wrong, but we say that they're being authentic and consistent.

That's just a very loose view of excusing people because of ignorance. It doesn't necessarily mean you think it's right just because they thought it was right, which is what the subjectivist would say. I think we're too willing to call something relativism when it might not be. It might just be easy excusism.

Miranda,

Regardless of what we call it (“subjectivism” probably is more accurate), I think you’re right in saying that people often mistake morality with authenticity. They confuse the two. Being true to themselves becomes a kind of morality. Some rely on an external moral system (as supplied by the Bible or tradition), but in society today it seems that the media, the academy, and other sources of influence teach that each individual should develop their own set of values. Unfortunately, individuals do not begin with a clean slate, they instead have been influenced by what they have experienced or have been taught. Also, despite their efforts to be unique or original, they often unwittingly gravitate toward popular moral choices--which tend to be the wrong choices (because the whole world lies under the sway of the evil one). They rarely think for themselves or apply independent judgment. Doing what feels right and doing what everyone else is doing often becomes indistinguishable. I would say that authenticity is a kind of morality (broadly defined), but for those of us who believe in the morality of the Bible, it sounds awfully like self-justification or a license to do what is evil (under the veneer of doing what is good).

Sorry, I meant Melinda (I don't know why I wrote Miranda).

This is interesting, Melinda. Perhaps many do use these phrases to indicate moral relativity. If so, the emphasis is on the “I” or “you” rather than the “right.” I have been around fairly traditional-minded folks much of my life, who use these phrases, and I think their concern is more about right action than saying that the individual is free to decide right and wrong.

Sometimes what they mean is, “you decide yourself what should be done." It’s a way to encourage someone. Sometimes it’s used when there are differing opinions as to what should be done, or when a person doesn’t feel they have enough information to give more specific advice. It can also be a way of saying, “Don’t do ___ just because I say so; the decision is yours.” In these cases there’s an assumption and indication of a person’s responsibility or legitimate right to make a decision.

I also think people say it when they are not sure whether they’ve done the right thing or not. Or they say it to defend what they’ve done if the rightness of their opinion or actions has been challenged.