The Truth About Truth | Part 2 | Relativism At Its Core
Much madness is divinest sense
To the discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.
' Tis the majority
In this, as all, prevails.
Assent, and you are sane,
Demur, - you're straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain.
_Emily Dickenson
People in today's culture accept that truth is relative. When this idea is questioned people are dumbfounded. It's like calling into question 2 + 2 = 4 yet it is almost completely unexamined. What seems right on the surface may self-destruct at its heart. Maybe as Mrs. Dickonson puts it, " what seems right on the surface isn't."
The original goal of my paper was to discover whether moral truths were relative or objective. The first thing I had to do was figure out what these big words meant!
Objective, subjective or relative
Objective means we are speaking about something outside of our self, the object.
Subjective means we are talking about the subject or ourselves. So if I say I like Pizza it is subjective because I am making a statement about the subject, me, what I like.
If I say that pizza is pepperoni, it is objective because I am speaking about the object, the pizza.
If I say that pizza is small I am speaking about the object but it is relative because the truth of the statement depends on what I am comparing it to.
It is compared to another object that can have a changing source. It is small compared to what, the usual size of a pizza? Or compared to the way my mom made it?
When we use these terms in ethics it translates like this:
Relativism: There isn’t a higher or unchanging standard of goodness. Good and bad are relative based on what an individual or a culture believes.
You do your own thing. Moral truths are preferences, and ethical truths depend on who is holding them. Ethical relativism says there are no universally valid moral principles. All moral principles are valid. The words ought and should are meaningless and everyone's morality is equal.
No individual morality should be imposed on others.
Objectivism: A moral rule is true whether or not anyone believes in it. It doesn't change with individuals or cultures. We don't invent it. We discover it like a math principle. It's not created by personal conviction and doesn't disappear when an individual rejects it. Moral rules are self-evident even though people choose to ignore them.
If you are a relativist, rules are a contradiction
If you are a relativist, rules are a contradiction. If there are no absolutes, no right or wrong, just what you believe, then what happens when someone values murder, cheating, or stealing if they have decided these things are ok for them. Who are you to impose your idea that they're not acceptable? Who are you to make a rule that your students can't cheat? What if they value cheating? The only thing you could do is say you can't cheat in my class because I value honesty, which is telling them they can't cheat in your class but it's perfectly ok elsewhere.
There are three types of moral relativism:
The first view is not strictly about morality but about culture, referring to anthropology and not ethics per se. The other two are bona fide relativist moral theses, which differ from each other by who defines the subjective moral boundaries. One holds that society at large is the subject determining the relativistic standards. The other holds that all moral judgments find their meaning in individual preferences, not cultural norms. In this view, the relevant moral decision-maker is the individual "
A lot of people justify their relativism by looking at our world and making an observation. Every culture is different and the people adopt their culture. Each group thinks that they are right and the other is wrong. This observation does not prove what it assumes, that morality is simply an invention of culture and no moral standard exists.
Just because everyone thinks they're right doesn't mean there is no right. “Just because views differ on the shape of the earth doesn't mean the earth has no shape. Just because cultures differ on moral viewpoints doesn't mean that objective moral truths don't exist. Disagreement on what is moral doesn't mean there are no morals. In logic this is called a non - sequitur; the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. " (Pg. 12, The bankruptcy of moral relativism)
The morals in many cultures throughout the ages have not changed, however, the facts have. Almost all cultures believe the murder of an innocent person is wrong, but the facts change on who is considered innocent. For example, the debate about abortion is more about facts, not values. Both sides of the abortion debate believe that killing an innocent human baby is a wrong and terrible thing; the issue of the debate is whether or not a baby in the womb is really human and alive. Another example, which shows how most of our cultural differences are facts, not values, comes from the author Gregory Koukl. " In India, Hindus don’t eat cattle because they believe the cow may be grandma reincarnated in another form. The fundamental value is the same: It is wrong to eat grandma when she dies.
Cultural relativism says to do whatever your society says to do. Again, there is no Right or wrong society. But that means you can’t ever accuse society of being immoral.
What if that society tries to take over the world and enslave all the elderly? We can't stop them. We can't even tell them it's wrong! This was the Nazi's defense at Nuremberg called "legal positivism".
This views morality as " whatever is legal " but it should be the opposite. Morality is the reason for the law not that the law decides what's moral. Doesn't it seem possible to have an immoral law? There must be something above the law.
The next type of relativism is subjective individualism which means you decide for yourself. NOTE any sane person acknowledges that there are gray areas, however, a true relativist believes it’s all gray. These people say they are tolerant, yet they are definitely not tolerant of anyone who believes differently than them. If someone believes in black and white views, they get defensive. “Don’t force your morality on me! Who are you to say!” The biblical description of this is found in the last verse of Judges where “Every man did what was right in his own eyes.”
Flaws: Relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing. If you believe morality is personal then you can’t make any judgments of anyone else’s actions ever again no matter how offensive. “It’s like claiming there is an illegal play in a game with no rules” You can express your emotions, tastes, personal preferences but that's the end of it. But if we are sure that some things must be wrong, that some judgments against another’s conduct are justified, then relativism must be false.
They can’t complain about the problem of evil, (which by the way gets rid of their biggest argument against God). Evil is a value judgment that identifies a departure from a standard of moral perfection. If there is no standard, then there is no departure. Relativism holds there is no standard.
C.S Lewis explains:
“ A portrait is a good or bad likeness depending on how it compares with the perfect original.”
He adds “ My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call something crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too---for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not just that it did not please my private fancies.”
In the movie, the “Quarrel” Rabbi Hersh explains the notion... “If there’s nothing in the universe that’s higher than human beings, then what’s morality? Well, it’s a matter of Opinion. I like milk, you like meat. Hitler likes to kill people. I like to save them. Who’s to say Hitler did anything wrong? If there is no God, then the people who killed your wife and kids did nothing wrong.”
If however there is a real problem of evil in the world, then relativism can’t be true.
This shows why Relativism can’t place blame or accept praise. They have no external standard to measure against. If there are no moral absolutes then nothing is ultimately good or bad, tragic or worthy of blame.
Nothing is ultimately good, honorable, noble, or worthy of praise. It’s nothing. It just is. Relativists are almost always inconsistent here. They want to avoid blame but not praise. When a relativist praises our good actions we could say ``how dare you to force your morality on me!” But if the notions of praise and blame are valid then relativism is not.
Justice and fairness mean nothing. The words themselves have no meaning. They dictate how people are supposed to act according to an outside standard, but that doesn’t exist remember? There are no rules, requirements, or demands. The terms innocent and guilty are meaningless. There is no true moral guilt, If there is no right and wrong then you have not broken any rules. If nothing is immoral, there is no blame, no guilt worthy of punishment. Personally, I don’t think I would like to leave my house in a world like this. If the notion of justice and fairness are true then relativism is not.
They can’t hold meaningful moral discussions, Quarreling means trying to show that the other man is wrong, but there is no wrong.
“If morals are entirely relative then there’s no way of telling if one moral view is adequate or deficient, unreasonable, unacceptable or even barbaric”. (Is Morality a matter of taste, true Inquiry, fall 1998, 34).
If they speak with any moral judgment they surrender their relativism, but if they don’t speak they surrender their humanity. It’s against the human conscience to stand in the face of evil and be mute.
They can’t promote the notion of tolerance.
There is no tolerance. If there are no moral rules there can’t be a rule that requires tolerance. In fact, if there are no absolutes, it’s a good reason not to be tolerant. Therefore, intolerance is fully justified. Who’s to say it’s bad?
Many people live in a moral contradiction. In the ’60s many men said there were no moral absolutes yet marched against the war in Vietnam because it was “an immoral war”. (Gregory Koul Pg.11)
No one actually lives this out. They are hypocrites. They say everyone does their own thing, no judgment allowed, but when you cut in front of them in line they complain.
The relativist will object to the unfair treatment at work. They will claim injustice in the legal system. They will think it’s wrong if someone rapes their daughter, praises their kids for getting straight A's, and they will condemn intolerant fundamentalists who force their moral views on others. But relativism can only truly be lived out in SILENCE!!
Conclusion
There is only one other option. If relativism is not what it seems, then moral objectivism must be real. There must be a standard that was created by someone greater than us. Just because we disagree on what truth is doesn’t mean there is no truth. Now that we know the real truth is available, we should seek it with our whole hearts.
Bibliography
The Bankruptcy of Moral Relativism by Gregory Koukl STR press 1998
Morality by Faye Wattleton, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, no date given
Mere Christianity by Clive Staples Lewis Macmillan press, 1952
“Is Morality a Matter of Taste?” Theodore Shick, Jr True Inquiry, fall 1998, 34
Philosophical Ethics Tom 1 Beauchamp, (1991 Mcgraw Hill)
Finding God at Harvard Kelly Monroe 1996 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996)
Discovering right and Wrong Louis P, Pojman (Belmont CA: Wadsworth Publishing co. 1990)