« Obama, Terrorism and Cubbyhold Foreign Policy
Obama and McCain: Both Raise Big Campaign Fund Bucks »



On Moral Relativism in America

July 17th, 2008
By JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor

Print Print

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.



This entry was posted on Thursday, July 17th, 2008 at 6:29 am and is filed under Pope Benedict, Moral Values, Philosophy, Human Rights, Multiculturalism, Society, Roman Catholics, Religion. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 8 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Childish people don't like good vs. bad, right or wrong, or worse, encountering the word NO.
    • ^
    • v
    The Pope was speaking out against consumerism and in favor of environmentalism, so his comments have to be understoood in that context.

    I think he made some acute observations. We are addicted to choice and depend on the markets to shape the nature of society, without considering the consequences. People make bad choices at times, and the markets are the playgound for competitive greed; they can not provide a moral compass.
    Without a sense of direction, societies can do irreperable harm to themselves and to the earth that sustains them.

    So far, so good. I agree that we need a moral compass, and probably, it's necessary to be simplistic in order to make a cogent argument. When his argument is extended from its narrow confines to broader implications, however, it leads to the kind of moral confusion he warns against.

    The opposite of moral equivalency is moral absolutism. Unwavering trust in a moral absolute gives license to do anything, ANYTHING, in its name. That puts us on that old road to hell paved with good intentions.
    While we definitely need a moral compass, we should not believe that North is the best direction to follow at all times and in all circumstances.

    Of course, the Pope believes that he and the Catholic Church are the only true guides, and I take great issue with that. His repeated claims that secularism is inherently spiritually empty is only religious party politics talk. Taken with appropriate grains of salt, though, the Pope's speeches can provide useful food for thought. Sometimes.
    • ^
    • v
    "The Pope was speaking out against consumerism and in favor of environmentalism, so his comments have to be understoood in that context. "

    Yes, but the thread here introduced moral relativism itself, though.

    "it leads to the kind of moral confusion he warns against"

    I would say it leads to agreement (partial or whole) or (complete) disagreement.
    • ^
    • v
    Good to see the pope has time to make philosophical speeches. I thought defending his army of child molesters would dominate his every waking moment...

    I kid, I kid...
    • ^
    • v
    I almost always like the Pope's speeches (ones of this nature) because they offer one of the very few occasions in which a major public figure looks at the world from both a broad social and philosophical perspective as well as a deep tradition of hundreds of years of Church theology and ethics. That said, the Pope needs to be very careful with this term relativism. It means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. The only consistent use is the idea that it's bad.

    I did a long guest post on cultural relativity almost exactly a year ago on TMV. Here's the link.

    The most important point is that one of the purposes of living this mortal life (and I think this is even agrees with a Catholic perspective) is to create our ethical. fully human selves. We aren't born with character; we forge one. And we don't come into this world all the same, with the same potential. This very much means that one way of living might bring out the best in one person but hide many of the potential virtues in another. The same could be true of a society or culture. It's not clear at all that there is one singular best way to live. If so, this is a relativity of sorts and it might be fundamental to what living ethically means.
    • ^
    • v
    Pacatrue,
    Wow! It's been a year since your essay?!
    It was great to re-read it.

    As you were pondering cultural and societal moral structures, did you ever consider the role of rebels, rebels who challenge a society's moral structure, that is?

    It's a subject hard to wrap one's thinking arms around, because of the dual aspect: a) immediate impact and b) later, often posthumous, reevaluation.

    i don't discount the immediate reaction, because an assault on any system can have potentially hazardous and possibly lethal consequences.
    Yet, I think rebels are necessary to maintain the vitality needed for a system to stay alive. .

    I was reading about the rift in the Anglican Church, and it semed to me that as painful as that is for the members, without such periodic upheavals, any 'system' atrophies and becomes irrelevant.
    The survival of the Catholic Church is not showing serious signs of atrophy, but it is changing, whether the Pope likes it or not. Many congregants simply disobey the rules, while others are turning to a more evangelical form of Catholicism. Maybe it's just a different, a more sub-rosa, form of rebelliom. .

    Any thoughts?
    • ^
    • v
    Runasim,

    To take a slight detour, something in your comment reminded me of a major religious survey from PewForum. There are a ton of findings, but a couple things I remember are that 1) almost a third of American catholics are lapsed, which fits in with 2) almost half of Americans (of all faiths) are not of the same denomination in adulthood as they were in their childhood. I just browsed through a couple other items in the survey and, in a related manner perhaps, across the entire nation belief in God is always in at least the 60% range and up. In the South, it's above 80% across the board. But, if you look at responses to the question of whether their faith is the only true faith 'leading to eternal life', only 24% do think that and a full 70% agree that many religions lead to eternal life. That last bit has to be a huge shift over the last 100 years. It all signals to me that religion continues to play a central role in the life of most Americans, but they're treating it more as a healthy way to construct their lives and less as a list of rights and wrongs.

    As for rebellion, boy, I don't know. It sounds to me like a very similar question to the one about balancing family vs nation; or nation vs. world; the self vs others. And maybe it is the same question. The value of rebellion is in its long-term effects. Taking your example, the rifts in the Anglican Church today are very painful, but if it makes it through the rifts, the church could be much stronger (assuming there is value in the rebellion) in the long term. So one has to weigh greater strength for the next generation against damage to our own. Do you destroy a marriage today for two healthier people in 10 years?

    You also mentioned "posthumous evaluation." Pain and the memory of it seem to recede with time. I'm not sure that in most of our posthumous evaluations we adequately understand the pain that we are now saying was worthwhile. The future is just as selfish as the present.

    I like that last line and I'm keeping it.
    • ^
    • v
    "The future is just as selfish as the present."

    That is a good line and very true.
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Obama, Terrorism and Cubbyhold Foreign Policy
Obama and McCain: Both Raise Big Campaign Fund Bucks »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.