The Pope is in the midst of a world tour, currently in Australia, and gave a speech this week where he criticized moral relativism. This took place at one of the world’s largest youth gatherings.
“Relativism, by indiscriminately giving value to practically everything, has made ‘experience’ all-important. Yet experiences, detached from any consideration of what is good or true, can lead not to genuine freedom, but to moral or intellectual confusion, to a lowering of standards, to a loss of self-respect,” he said.
The essence of the Pontiff’s remarks were an attack on the concept that, “there are no absolute truths in this world.” This is some tempting fruit, but still warrants examination, particularly in a nation as diverse as ours. It’s easy for us, especially in turbulent times such as these, to feel that we are locked in a battle of good vs. evil. Trying to define evil can be linguistically challenging, but may also be seen as easy in practice. Similar to a now famous definition of pornography vs. art, there is a commonplace attitude of, “we’ll know it when we see it.”
There is nothing wrong with a society establishing its own agreed upon standards of right and wrong. In fact, we already do this regularly as displayed by many of the laws we pass and commonly accepted social standards which are enforced in more ambiguous ways. Some of the lines we see as easily defined, however, can also send up the caution flag. There are actions we can readily agree upon as “evil” all around us. People who kick, starve and abuse animals are evil. Monsters that rape and torture women or children are evil. If a gang of thugs drags a person out in the street and mercilessly beats them because the victim’s skin is a different color or they are of a different sexual orientation, the thugs in question are evil.
But what if the person they haul into the road is a predatory rapist and child molester who escaped prison time on a legal technicality? I would hope the majority of us would still be clucking our tongues in disapproval at the gang mentality, but it’s not hard to imagine that other words such as our rejection of “vigilante justice” would be used, (with emphasis on “justice”) and the level of outrage might be ratcheted down a few notches. How about a similar case, but the recipient of the beating was a Muslim who had been found to have been funneling cash to extremists in Afghanistan who were killing Americans? Ah… the lines begin to blur a bit, don’t they?
And what of religion, which forms the bedrock of moral authority for many Americans? Is the practice of Christianity an inherently superior moral position to the practice of Judaism? I suspect even most Christians would be uncomfortable with that suggestion. But is Christianity clearly more “good” than Islam? Is there something inherently “evil” about being a practicing Muslim? And what of the atheists in our midst? I’m not speaking of someone’s inherent first amendment rights here, upon which I think the vast majority of us would agree. Are those atheists more or less “good” than Christians? Are they full equals on the moral playing field or are they unfortunate, inferior beings to be tolerated by the Good People with hopes that they shall someday find salvation?
Holding on to community values and definitions of right and wrong is good and necessary, but like anything else, a little moderation is required. Be Good and Right as best you can, but always keep in mind that sometimes a little moral relativism may be required.