Realtivism Collapses Under Its Own Arguments
This article was originally published Feb. 16, 2006 in the Kansas City Star:
Recently many conservatives have been up in arms over the film Brokeback Mountain, seeing it as an attempt to mainstream homosexuality and make it more socially acceptable. The responses from the other side of the issue have included claims that if the activity involves two consenting individuals and no one is being harmed, then the activity in question cannot be considered “wrong.” This same kind of thinking can be found when it comes to religious ideas, abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide. It is the kind of thinking that says, “Who are you to judge?” and “That may be true for you, but it isn’t for me.” In taking this sort of moral high-ground the person asking the question is actually stating that the one making the moral assertion has no right to do so.
This moral relativism is rampant in our nation and is a danger to our society. On the surface relativism may seem humble and even a bit noble. After all, isn’t it arrogant to imply that one moral system is superior to another? Yet, the one holding the relativistic position likely has not thoroughly thought this position through, for if the idea of moral relativism is carried out to its logical conclusion then its proponents would be in a very unhappy place. The main idea with moral relativism is that no one person or society can make objective moral judgments that are universally true for all people at all times. The problems with this philosophy are manifold, but two of these downfalls will be discussed here in order to show the inadequacy of this school of thought.
The first problem that the proponents of moral relativism face is the self-refuting nature of the system. To illustrate, let’s say that Joe (a moral absolutist) is discussing homosexuality with Tom (a moral relativist). Joe states that he believes homosexuality is wrong. Tom responds by asking, “Who are you to judge?” In asking this question Tom has actually made a moral judgment of his own by implying that Joe is “wrong” in his claim about homosexuality. Tom has just proven that it really is okay to make moral judgments, he just doesn’t agree with Joe’s moral judgments. By trying to claim that making moral judgments is wrong, the relativist refutes his own argument. The second issue that moral relativists have to deal with is the most dire. If it is true that no one can make absolute moral judgments that are true for all people at all times, then all moral judgments are under suspicion. If it can’t be said that homosexuality is wrong, why can’t the same be said of pedophelia or bestiality by extension? If it can’t be said that abortion or assisted suicide are wrong, then how much longer will it be until the same is said about infanticide and euthanasia of the elderly and disabled? Once one begins down the road of moral relativism where is the stopping point? There is none. If the making of moral judgments is disallowed then the entire system of laws must be thrown out. After all, laws are an imposition of a moral code on a society. This leaves mankind with the realization that moral rules must exist for society to survive.
How do we rescue ourselves from this moral relativism? The key is recognizing that man is not the measure of all things. Mankind is responsible to a higher authority than himself. The State is not the giver of life, nor the provider of rights. The Founding Fathers recognized this when they penned the words that all men are “endowed by their Creator” with certain, unalienable rights. These rights were given by a Creator, not the State; the State merely recognized and affirmed those rights. Until we again recognize this America will continue in its slide of moral decay. Today we may kill the unborn and those who wish to die. We may also allow marriage to be redefined in order to accommodate those living an unnatural lifestyle, but if our society continues to embrace relativism our nation will go the way of all the great nations of the past, to be remembered only in history books.
Recently many conservatives have been up in arms over the film Brokeback Mountain, seeing it as an attempt to mainstream homosexuality and make it more socially acceptable. The responses from the other side of the issue have included claims that if the activity involves two consenting individuals and no one is being harmed, then the activity in question cannot be considered “wrong.” This same kind of thinking can be found when it comes to religious ideas, abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide. It is the kind of thinking that says, “Who are you to judge?” and “That may be true for you, but it isn’t for me.” In taking this sort of moral high-ground the person asking the question is actually stating that the one making the moral assertion has no right to do so.
This moral relativism is rampant in our nation and is a danger to our society. On the surface relativism may seem humble and even a bit noble. After all, isn’t it arrogant to imply that one moral system is superior to another? Yet, the one holding the relativistic position likely has not thoroughly thought this position through, for if the idea of moral relativism is carried out to its logical conclusion then its proponents would be in a very unhappy place. The main idea with moral relativism is that no one person or society can make objective moral judgments that are universally true for all people at all times. The problems with this philosophy are manifold, but two of these downfalls will be discussed here in order to show the inadequacy of this school of thought.
The first problem that the proponents of moral relativism face is the self-refuting nature of the system. To illustrate, let’s say that Joe (a moral absolutist) is discussing homosexuality with Tom (a moral relativist). Joe states that he believes homosexuality is wrong. Tom responds by asking, “Who are you to judge?” In asking this question Tom has actually made a moral judgment of his own by implying that Joe is “wrong” in his claim about homosexuality. Tom has just proven that it really is okay to make moral judgments, he just doesn’t agree with Joe’s moral judgments. By trying to claim that making moral judgments is wrong, the relativist refutes his own argument. The second issue that moral relativists have to deal with is the most dire. If it is true that no one can make absolute moral judgments that are true for all people at all times, then all moral judgments are under suspicion. If it can’t be said that homosexuality is wrong, why can’t the same be said of pedophelia or bestiality by extension? If it can’t be said that abortion or assisted suicide are wrong, then how much longer will it be until the same is said about infanticide and euthanasia of the elderly and disabled? Once one begins down the road of moral relativism where is the stopping point? There is none. If the making of moral judgments is disallowed then the entire system of laws must be thrown out. After all, laws are an imposition of a moral code on a society. This leaves mankind with the realization that moral rules must exist for society to survive.
How do we rescue ourselves from this moral relativism? The key is recognizing that man is not the measure of all things. Mankind is responsible to a higher authority than himself. The State is not the giver of life, nor the provider of rights. The Founding Fathers recognized this when they penned the words that all men are “endowed by their Creator” with certain, unalienable rights. These rights were given by a Creator, not the State; the State merely recognized and affirmed those rights. Until we again recognize this America will continue in its slide of moral decay. Today we may kill the unborn and those who wish to die. We may also allow marriage to be redefined in order to accommodate those living an unnatural lifestyle, but if our society continues to embrace relativism our nation will go the way of all the great nations of the past, to be remembered only in history books.
posted by Jim V. | 11:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home