The Insidious Threat of Relativism
In today’s Western culture, having a clear faith is often viewed as fundamentalism, while relativism is seen as the only acceptable attitude. This phenomenon is aptly described by Pope Benedict XVI as a “dictatorship of relativism” where nothing is considered certain, and individual desires are elevated above all else.
Understanding Relativism
Relativism manifests in two forms: cultural and individual. Cultural relativism posits that right and wrong are determined by one’s culture, implying that objective moral truths either don’t exist or are unknowable. Individual relativism takes it a step further, asserting that morality is a matter of personal preference, and we shouldn’t judge others or impose our morality on them.
The Flaws of Relativism
However, both forms of relativism are fundamentally flawed. Firstly, cultural differences may not be as stark as they seem. Sometimes, the differences are factual rather than moral. For instance, a talk show host may believe that humans have intrinsic value but think that the unborn is not a human entity until later in pregnancy. This is a factual error, not a moral disagreement.
Secondly, even if cultures do differ, it doesn’t mean that nobody is correct. The absence of consensus doesn’t imply the absence of truth. Mathematicians may disagree on proofs, but that doesn’t challenge the foundations of mathematics.
Thirdly, if morals are relative to culture or individual, then there’s no ethical difference between Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa; they simply had different preferences. This view is counterintuitive and fails to account for our innate sense of right and wrong.
Fourthly, relativism cannot explain why we should be tolerant of other cultures. If right and wrong are relative to one’s society, then moral reformers like Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi are evil for challenging their own society’s moral codes.
Finally, relativism is often judgmental, as seen in the case of a relativist judging a pro-lifer as mistaken. Isn’t the relativist guilty of the very thing they accuse others of?
A Brief History of Moral Thought
Ronald Scott Smith’s book “In Search of Moral Knowledge” provides a comprehensive history of moral thought from ancient times to the present day. He begins with the moral realism of the Old Testament, where moral truth is both real and knowable. This objective moral standard is grounded in the character of God and is accessible to all.
Classical thinkers like Plato and Aristotle also recognized objective moral truths. For Plato, these truths are grounded in the world of ideas, while for Aristotle, they are rooted in human nature. The New Testament writers continued this tradition, adding that moral truth is not only real and knowable but also transforming.
The Transforming Power of Moral Truth
Through the Holy Spirit, God’s objective truth radically changes the Christian disciple, making them more like their Master. Even nonbelievers can recognize certain objective moral truths and act upon them, without the aid of special revelation. The moral law, rooted in God’s general revelation, is something we all know intuitively.
In conclusion, moral relativism is a pervasive threat to our understanding of right and wrong. By recognizing its flaws and understanding the rich history of moral thought, we can confidently assert that moral truth is real, knowable, and transforming.
Leave a Reply