Definite Relativism

Much of our discourse, these days, is about the good or bad of conclusions. We muddle about, with poor definitions, in the areas of capitalism, socialism, liberalism, Keynesianism, and so on.  These isms are categorized and analyzed, sliced and diced, but it would be beneficial to work backward from these conclusions masquerading as beliefs.  As with calibrating or repairing a compass before a voyage, it is easier to arrive somewhere if you start at the beginning, where things "gang oft agley."

As I mentioned to classes, character is destiny. You may not have thought about it, but it is true. It is a constant theme in literature, especially Shakespear. You will be taken to where your 12-year old morality takes you, unless you are remarkably conscious. Let us not divert, here.

Sometime ago, some author, somewhere, was talking about Bill Clinton's belief in a relativistic morality. It was not a canard, merely a statement of what was given as fact on the way to some other observation. I thought it interesting that Mr. Clinton actually had an opinion as to his view being relativistic. So, what does that mean?

Let me back away from the former President and address the concept generally.

A relativistic moral philosophy rejects any normative morality, no matter what it is called. Hence, even the bible would not be a definite moral code, the Constitution would be just some rules. It can be said a relativist looks at morality the way most of us look at aesthetics. De gustibus non diputandum.  Of taste, no dispute.

This is a wonderful-sounding "liberal" thought. (The term "liberal" thoroughly confused, but used.) The politically and otherwise correct can pride themselves, and they do, with the idea they are not judging other's ideas as wrong or morally wrong. To an extent, this is probably a majority of people.

Darius of Persia asked some Greeks if they would eat their dead parents. The Greeks were horrified, they burned their dead. Then, he asked some Callatians if they would. Of course, they said. They were horrified at the idea of burning their dead. This is the sort tale that induces a thinking that morality is relative, even if you get mad-cow disease from eating dad. Relativists look at those with solid rules as bumpkins, the unwashed, small-minded, and mean old conservatives, using the non-political meaning.  Relativists are good at sneering when someone makes a qualitative statement or, as comes to mind, says this or that is unconstitutional.

I suspect you feel that way. After all, this is tolerance and enlightened people will abjure any sort of judgment. Right? We are all God's children.

The problem is relativism is logically impossible and sloppy thinking allows it to survive a moral philosophy, a morality of no standards. Stick with this, it is important.

Here is the gravamen of the argument against relativism:  According to relativists, there is no normative moral position - a people can have a view that is moral for them, like eating dad, but not others.

This said, we must take note that there are prejudiced and racist groups of people. Therefore, they are morally correct.  Hence, apartheid was morally correct for the people who held the view. Hell, slavery must be a moral good for a plantation owner. A relativist cannot object to racism, yet they will be the first to express outrage. This is contradictory.

A relativist cannot claim to be tolerant. Only a person who is a non-relativist, say a strongly religious person, can be tolerant by permitting another view to exist. A relativist can't do that; they have to get on the subway with everyone and have no opinion as to what anyone there does because all views are equal to all others. See where this is going?

A relativist cannot be outraged at the KKK as they have the same right to a moral position as anyone. No one has a right to say they are wrong.

This is not semantics, please understand that.

Anyone who claims to be a relativist and, at the same time, hates racism, slavery, or the National League is ignorant, at best. Many are just liars.

Well, you might say, racism is wrong even though you don't like to impose your own views on others.

If you do, you have a fundamental belief in something that you know to be morally correct. Hence, your moral philosophy is one of a free-floating contradiction where your feelings lead to conclusions, there is no other path.

So, take this logic out of the world of the academe and into the real world. It is here that you will find relativism is a tool used to pry loose the firm opinions of those with annoying beliefs in such things as law, God, personal honor, and so on. A relativist says we must permit anyone to do anything because it would be wrong to impose your morality on others. This is a creeping moral and rational anarchy.  When you are trained not to object to prostitution, drug use, cheating, and so on. Laws disintegrate.

In Vermont, when the Supreme Court somehow figured the Dread Scott decision required the legislature to make a law permitting social contracts, at the same time the criminal law had a provision against sodomy. It still might. Here is the problem with emotional conclusions dancing around the real world.

If one still likes the feel-good notion that they can't reject other ideas, one is lost in a sea of emotion, a sea that is easily whipped up or becalmed. One is a prisoner of others and their emotional prompts. You will be expected a join in contempt for those who hold a definite position as they are intolerant and small minded.

In today's world, there is an elitist notion that the others, the simians, are not enlightened sufficiently to appreciate we are all individual creators of morality. They feel, for example, one should not say that Iran can't have an atomic bomb because they are a country just like the U.S., that the Moslems can have religious fanatics in charge who mutilate young female children, and so on. This is insanity and the cause of much of the political turmoil extant. It is the source of the complaint that our society is being destroyed from within. It is.  Character is destiny and relativism is entropy.

We simians try to get along and be good, which we are told is to not offend others, but pushed too far, we will encounter the lines that define our moral philosophy. We are at these lines in many cases, today, as those in charge of destroying lines, of "change," are pushing on all fronts expecting that new laws will change the population.  They do not have a moral center, so cannot appreciate people who have a compass.

Those with a defined sense of morality can only be pushed so far. They may not feel, for example, disgust at feticide is a relative morality. It is one thing to defer to the ruling that is OK for three months is one thing, but deference does not change anyone's mind. That which is permitted out of tolerance does not live on an equal footing with that which permits it to exist. Again, relativists can't appreciate this. They figure a few laws will change things, people will get used to separate but equal moralities.

Christ is quoted as saying, "Hate the sin, not the sinner." This is tolerance, the acceptance of our shared humanity; it is not a statement of moral relativism. It assumes "sin."

Our instinctive tolerance is being used to cloak a contrary philosophy, that there is no morality, other than what one believes in.  For relativists, morality is a set of local taboos and if you disagree with their belief that no one view is wrong, then you are wrong. See the contradiction?