I once had a meeting with a
theology department where the entire agenda was on how to address Moral
Relativism. Do I need to define it? Moral Relativism essentially claims what is
right and what is wrong is completely relative to the person or persons
involved in the action. That is, it is up to the individual to determine what
is right or wrong for them as it pertains to their own subjective Truth. That
means all actions are neither right nor wrong in an objective sense. People who
believe this are not bad people. They aren’t malicious. In fact, I think this
particular belief is rooted in an instinct to Love. I’ll explain that later.
The meeting lasted for over an hour while everyone struggled to figure out the
best way to teach against this ideology. Basically, we were looking for a
formula that could be used to teach the illogical and irrational nature of
relativism That was probably a mistake. I mean, I think Moral Relativism is
rooted in an instinct to Love one another and now we wanted to tell our
students to stop doing that? No wonder people respond so negatively to most
lessons on Moral Relativism! Let me explain.
First, I am logically (and morally) opposed to Moral
Relativism. But I want to deconstruct this ideology. What I am writing here I
do not teach in the classroom, necessarily, but I do keep this in mind when I
talk about Moral Relativism. If we are made in the image and likeness of God
and God is self-giving Love and community, then it makes sense that humans will
have a tendency to “sacrifice” for the sake of community. That sounds contrary
to the criticism that humans tend to be selfish and self-serving. Well, we are
also made with an instinct to be happy, so it gets complicated. To make it
simple, most people want themselves and everyone else to be happy. Here’s a
stupid analogy: I Love warm pecan pie. It makes me happy. I know (episteme)
that if I get a piece of warm pecan pie then I will be happy. I have control
over my own happiness because I have observed, studied and I can predict my
happiness. That feels pretty good. Of course, not everyone likes pecan pie (I
do not know exactly who these strange folks are, but I will presume they are
human just like me). Maybe they like apple pie or pumpkin pie. But like
me, they have observed, studied, and they can predict what kind of pie makes
them happy. If I want other people to be happy, and I know that pecan pie is
not their preferred method for achieving that happiness, then I want to make
sure they have access to whatever pie they desire. That’s not a bad thing,
right? I Love my friends and my neighbors. I want them to be happy, and I trust
that they are smart enough to determine for themselves what will make them
happy. And if apple pie makes them happy, then that is True for them. What is
wrong with that philosophy? I just want everyone to be happy. This is Moral
Relativism, in a nutshell. It really is rooted in an instinct to Love and to
create a happy community, which is our image and likeness, after all. Of
course, there is a tragic and logical flaw to this ideology and has to do with
how we define Love and how we determine what we know to make us happy.
I Love it when my students figure out that Moral
Relativism is an ideology rooted in Love. It is not just an arbitrary “you do
you” kind of philosophy. Their minds are open enough for me to suggest flaws in
their logic. My students and people who are Moral Relativists are not stupid.
They rarely make ridiculous claims like “everything” is morally okay. They know
that the minute they say that “everything” is morally relative things like
rape, pedophilia, murder, etc… become morally licit or acceptable. Only once
have I heard someone say something so monumentally stupid. I was in college and
the United States was about to invade Iraq following the 9/11 terrorist
attacks. One of my classmates in a World Religions class adamantly opposed the
invasion; she was a pacifist and abhorred violence of any kind. I was glad to
hear someone share my own personal beliefs that violence should be avoided at
all costs. But then another classmate chimed in and made the point that
Saddam Hussein needed to be ousted as he was systematically oppressing and
killing of Kurds and other ethnic and political minorities. The claim was that
the invasion would bring that to an end and was, therefore, the right thing to
do. The first student, the pacifist, then said the dumbest thing I have ever
heard. She said that they were citizens of Iraq and they were Saddam Hussein’s
people to deal with as he determined. I almost threw up. This is Moral
Relativism to its extreme. I know this girl in my college class was trying to
defend her position that war was not the answer, but then what is the answer?
If war is wrong and the oppression and systematic execution of Kurds is wrong,
then what does that say about what we “know”? What does that say about what
makes us “happy”? Certainly, the 8% of Hussein’s population who controlled the
country would be “happy” with the oppression of the other 92%. Who are we to
take their freedom to pursue their happiness away from them? If we are going to
believe in Love, community, and happiness, then maybe we need to recognize that
how we “know” or how we define Love, community, and Happiness is incomplete and
limited to our own human intellect.
No comments:
Post a Comment