You really don't want moral relativism to be true

In last day's post I was suggesting that only in a Judeo Christian culture would you even dream of pushing the idea of moral relativism (wrong for you but right for me). Today I want to ask the question why anyone would want it in the first place. I think the answer is clear from those who advocate it. Let me quote from Faye Wattleton's articulate defense of the position. Wattleton, a former President of Planned Parenthood, says “We must resist any attempt by others to sell, push, or otherwise force their own pet values on the rest of us,” and “teaching morality doesn't mean imposing my moral values on others. It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do--and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves.” I want you to trust me to judge for myself, but (and here is the biggie) do you want to trust me to make up my mind for myself? What if I am a member of the pedophile organization NAMBLA (North American man love boy association). If this were me (it's not) would you want to trust me to be alone with your 8 year old son?

Do you want to trust all politicians to do what they think is right? Should we live and let live, refuse to “interfere” and not “push our values” on those in power who are corrupt, or who are wanting to push through legislation that is not to our liking. Should we resist or not resist those who are less well off than we are if they justify taking what belongs to us because in their eyes that is only fair? What I am suggesting is that we may well be for moral relativism when it works to our advantage, but if were adopted wholesale by our culture it would not do that. Moral relativism gives us no rational basis for law and order. Make no mistake about it we are heading more and more in the direction of lawlessness as perpetrators of crime increasingly receive more consideration than their victims.

We can't have it both ways. We cannot demand the freedom to do exactly what we want without giving others the right to do exactly what they want. And this would be alright if we were all trustworthy, but we are not! So do you want moral relativity to be true? Moral relativity if practiced consistently has to lead to anarchy. You do not want to live in a lawless society (as ours is increasingly becoming)! Trust me, you do not really want moral relativism to be true!

Moral relativism? Only in a Judeo Christian culture

I want to suggest that it is only in a culture heavily influenced in the long haul by Judeo Christian (i.e. Biblical) values, where the basic tenants of its morality were firmly established, that would one even dream of spouting the nonsense of moral relativism. I am referring not only to the Judeo Christian basis of law and order (no murder, no stealing etc.), but also to the the strong teaching to love your neighbour (anyone in need), and to exhibit the Christian virtues of kindness, sensitivity and tolerance, as well as its emphasis on the value and equality of all humankind. It seems to me that those who do advocate moral relativism have either forgotten, taken for granted, or never realized in the first place the foundational positive influence of Christianity on our Western values.

There are three components of a culture that I believe would need to be in place, and to essentially be taken for granted (and thus hidden), before moral relativism would not be laughed out of court. The first is that there would need to be strongly enforced (if not always successful) laws that prohibited the sort of morality enshrined for example in the 10 commandments. The second component is that there would have to have been a widely held strong rational basis for the kind of morality described above. Thirdly because in the real world even such a basis is fragile, not only would it need to have been held by a large percentage of the population, this would have to have been held over an extended period of time.

With regard to the first condition there would need to be in place strongly enforced laws that prohibit murder, rape, assault and the like. In making the case for moral relativism I quoted Faye Wattleton as saying “teaching morality … means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do--and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves,” and of course this also means giving them the freedom to do what we may not want them to do. But you would want to give me the right to “judge for myself” if murder or theft was right or wrong for me, especially if my actions were likely to affected you personally. Nobody in their right mind is going to do this with issues such as murder or rape or theft. No certain laws would have to be firmly in place and essentially unchallengeable. The moral relativist might answer “well we are not referring to things like that!” But you can't have it both ways, either there is such a thing as right and wrong or there is not. Moral relativism says “not” and needs the type of law I am referring to to be firmly in place and taken for granted (so the contradictions are not so obvious!) before you would even dream of advocating it.

Secondly there would have to have been a widely held, strong rational basis for the values of charity justice and the essential worth, dignity and equality of all human existence. I am not just saying these values would need to be held, I am saying there would need to be a strong basis for these things. These values stand or fall together, for a rational basis for equality without a strong motivation to charity would not give the necessary impetus to do something about the plight of others. It is surly undeniable that we humans can too easily hold in theory that the practice of virtue is a good thing, while at the same time being unwilling to do anything about it. Talk is cheap, and there can be much opposition to putting these values into practice, especially if it costs to do so. One of the strongest and most enduring arguments against the abolition of slavery in Wilberforce's Britain, was the economic argument. It was argued that the economy would collapse if Wilberforce had his way. It is surly only when there is a strong basis for these values that there would be any possibility of moving from mere talk to action.

Moral relativism in and of itself does not have such a basis. If that is not apparent, we only need to ask why moral relativism finds itself unable to live up to its own moral imperative “we must not impose our values on others ….” If moral relativists were consistent in applying their own imperative, they would not impose the values of moral relativity on those of us who do not (fully) agree. In fact if moral relativists were consistent, moral relativity would self destruct. The point is that in order not to impose its own values on others, moral relativity would need to refrain from criticizing anything and everything. It would need to remain forever silent, even in the face of things it saw as hateful. Should moral relativists be allowed to say “We must live and let live, and strenuously resist any attempt by others to sell, push, or otherwise force their own pet values on the rest of us,” and then turn round and “sell, push, and otherwise force” the own pet values of moral relativism on the rest of us? To do so would surely be hypocritical!

It get's worse actually, because moral relativists do not even have a rational basis for saying that all human beings are of equal value, and therefore to be treated as such. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that moral relativists are wrong to believe that. I hope it is obvious that that is my position too. What I am saying is that they don't have a rational basis for believing what all truly moral beings believe, and that is in the equality of humankind. It is however only within Judeo -Christian morality that we find the necessary powerful motivation and basis to do more than just talk.

There is another point I need to make about the “strong rational basis” for this morality. Many question the rationality of the Judeo Christian position? I showed earlier that all World views (including atheistic views) can only be held by faith. With this understanding you can choose to say either (parts of) atheism and Christianity are both rational or that they are both irrational. Though this is not well understood, it is not logical to say for example that the Christian faith is irrational but that atheism is not (see specifically 'the faith of the atheist'). What we need to do is to examine the underlying assumptions in the face of observed reality, and that is (part of) what this blog and my coming book is all about.

So then what I am saying in this second point is that the culture would have to have been a strong rational basis based on a prevailing world view for the position that all humans are of equal value and thus to be treated as such. The view that we are all Darwinian primates and nothing more does not, for example give such a rational position, and could not have created the atmosphere I am claiming is necessary for moral relativity to be even begin to be heard. The point is that without such a strong rational basis there is not sufficient motivation for society to engage in the tremendous sacrifice necessary to defend the rights of those whose emancipation has no evolutionary benefit. On the other hand a strongly held belief that there is a God; that God has proclaimed that there is no difference between male and female or slave and freeman or between Jew and Gentile (Galatians 3:28); that we must all stand before Him one day to receive rewards or punishment for what we have done in this life (Romans 14:12). And such a belief if strongly held does indeed furnish a strong rational basis for such a sacrifice. Again, I am not saying that these values do not exist outside of Christendom, I am saying (a) that there is no strong rational basis of them, and (b) that only in a Judeo Christian culture is it (has it been) widely held and practiced.

I want to make clear what I am not saying here. I am not saying that atheists cannot be moral, or that atheists cannot display outstanding compassion, charity and humanity. Of course atheists can have these qualities, and have at time even shamed those of us who name the name of Christ who have not followed His teaching. What I am saying is that when they do such things, they do them in spite of not having a strong rational basis to do so. It also seems to me likely that such views are stimulated by the Judeo Christian influence on the culture in which such atheists often live. In my view, even when we deny God, we still need Him, and our hearts inherently know goodness when we see it, even if there is a disconnect with our mind! If this is true we would expect more charity from the religious than the nonreligious in the North American context. Arthur Brooks in his book “Who really cares,” lays out evidence for that this is indeed the case. The results of his research surprised Brooks who says “the evidence leaves no room to doubt: Religious people are far more charitable than nonreligious people” (p 34). He is of course talking about the North American context. In a quote from Harvey Mansfield on the back cover of the book we read “He (Brooks) has stern words, based on quantitative proof, for liberals who boast of compassion for others but never actually give to them.” The strong basis of which I speak would need to have done more than produce mere talk!

So I am saying that the rational basis has to be strongly held, strong enough to have found its way into the practical behaviour of the culture, and to be held by sufficient numbers, so that it characterized the culture itself. In particular the rational basis has to be strong enough and broad enough so that individuals could successfully change the culture, even if it meant they needed to spend their lives working towards change. I am thinking again of the campaign in (then) Christian England to abolition of slavery. You do not go to war to establish the rights of the underprivileged (thinking for example of the American Civil war) unless you have a very strong reason to do so! America had such a strong rational basis in it's widespread belief in the God of the Bible. Look and see, you do not find these things in cultures that have not been strongly influenced in the long haul by Judeo Christian morality. And this brings me to the third point that “because in the real world even such a basis is fragile, not only would it need to have been held by a large percentage of the population, this would have to have been held over an extended period of time.”

The history of mankind is not encouraging. It is not hard to see that the virtues we are discussing here are not the default. We also see this in our nature, in that good habits are hard to get into and easy to get out of, while bad habits are easy to get into and hard to get out of! Cultures that once had the above mentioned virtues seem to be able to loose them at the drop of a hat (or at the instigation of powerful forces determined on their overthrow). Russia and Germany in the last Century are prime examples of this. It seems to me that Western society is likewise in grave danger of this too, but I digress (again)! My point is that Judeo Christian cultures are fragile. If further evidence is needed, one only needs to read the history of ancient Israel as revealed in the Bible!

So why do I say it needs to have been there in the long haul? There are three things here. The first is that the basis of law and order would need to have been in place long enough be essentially taken for granted, so that it was no longer an issue. The second is that in the absence of the desperate need to establish the basis for such laws (as opposed to the implementation of them) it would take time for the all the grievances that the law was not addressing to come to the surface. The rights of women to vote is not (and would not be) the most pressing issue where the law was not even attempting to deal with widespread murder or rape. The third thing is that it seems to be the nature of mankind that he (she) does not seem to easily want to accept reform of that will end up costing him dearly, so that only when these values are held in the long term will thy likely be put into practice.

Jesus teaching is significant here. He taught that the nature of the kingdom was like leaven that slowly makes its way through the whole lump. His teaching and example about women and slavery illustrate what I am wanting to say here. Jesus attitude towards and treatment of women, non Jews, and non-Jewish women in particular was revolutionary, but His “revolution” was non-violent. Only in an atmosphere where law and order could be taken for granted, could attention then be given to the issues these “less urgent issues” His attitude and example strongly advocate. I think you will find there this is no strong basis for this sort of thing in any system not strongly influenced by New Testament teachings. The word “Christian” means little Christ, and the Christian was impelled to follow his master, even in the way he dealt with the underprivileged, the marginalized and the oppressed in society. The Judeo Christian God is a God of Justice, and His people are commanded to be people of justice too.

To say it again "Only in a culture heavily influenced in the long haul by Judeo Christian values, where the basic tenants of its morality were firmly established, that would one even dream of spouting the nonsense of moral relativism."

Trash, treasure and Western culture

Nobody is right all the time, and probably nobody is wrong all the time either. But you wouldn't know it by the way people talk. The subtitle of a book by Christopher Hitchens “How religion poisons everything” illustrates my point. I mean “everything”? I could (and do) buy “Religion poisons some things,” even “many things,” but “everything”? Similarly with haters of all that is Western (many of whom seem to live in our midst), there seems to be this need to trash the whole kit and caboodle. Please don't misunderstand me, there are many things that do need to be trashed. Cooperate greed is one of them, capitalism has been confused with Christianity, as has the mix of politics and Christianity. This seems to poison both of them. So I am not by any means saying that Hitchens does not have a point in some of the things that he is saying, but is absolutely everything wrong? Do we not rather need to learn to “separate the precious from the vile,” the trash from the treasure? In the end we may not be able to agree about what is trash and what is treasure, but we do need to see the good as well as the bad. Do we not need to think and consider and to debate these things, and do we not we need to listen to each other?

It seems to be a quirk of human nature that we do not seem to really appreciate what we have until we no longer have it. Since we are all a mixture of truth and error, right and wrong, we can be pretty sure that any view that completely trashes a culture or people group, or religion is not balanced. To be sure when we have been deeply hurt it is hard to see the good, we can't see the treasure for seeing the trash. But when we operate out of bitterness, we are not always seeing things clearly, and tolerance surly dictates that we should try. Last day we were discussing the total nonintervention that some anthropologists advocate. Let me reiterate that cultural anthropology does have a point about our need for humility. But surely we should not willingly turn a blind eye to oppression wherever it occurs. What to do about such things is another question.

I realize that it is not politically correct to compare cultures, and we do indeed need to display humility cultural sensitivity and appropriate tolerance, but surely we go too far! Taken to the extreme we would have to condemn all war. Is there is no such thing as a just war, have there never been megalomaniacs who some how or other manged to finish up in power? Moral relativism, if it were consistent would exclude not only war, but reform of any kind. This is because we would not be able to say anything was wrong. But not one of us can live consistently with this. We all want to affirm that murder and a lot of other things are wrong (especially when they are close to home!).

The other thing that happens when under the pressure of political correctness we refuse to discern right and wrong, is that we fail to see what is good both outside and closer to home. So then in order to more fully appreciate the treasure (among the trash) that we have been handed down in Western culture, I want us to look, see and understand what is missing from cultures that have not been heavily influenced (or have turned their back on) Judeo Christian values. In this post I will not be able to do anything more than scratch the surface of what I want to say, and in any case most of what I say will be anecdotal. In fact in order to fully see the point I am wanting to make you probably would need to have been born and raised in one of those cultures. What I am saying is that looking at other cultures from inside our own, we may be better able to see the good other cultures have to offer. And this is why the omission of the perspective of indigenous leaders from the Nightline report, mentioned in my August 24th post was so very very wrong! But I digress (slightly).

This point about the positive opinions of our culture from those born outside is important, and if you are willing to have your eyes opened, I can thoroughly recommend a book by Vishal Mangalwadi entitled “The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization.” Mangalwadi's hails originally from India, and his book is eyeopening for me, even after spending 10 months in Africa with my family in the early 90's. That experience was eye opening in and of itself! I was arrested three times during that period. Each time the point was to persuade me to bribe the police. One of those times the whole police station was involved in the attempt. As I said to my wife at the time, we would be shocked and disappointed if this had happened in Canada, but having lived in Africa for that ten months we would almost have been surprised if it had not happened.

There is a phrase that is used frequently over there, it is T.I.A. “this is Africa.” It is spoken as though nothing more need to be said by way of explanation. Nothing should surprise you T.I.A. Uganda had earlier been devastated under the terror of Idi Amin. At the time of our visit (relative) law and order had been restored under Museveni. In any case I had been assured that this was so (or we would not have gone). I was spending most of my sabbatical year at the University in Kampala in Uganda. I went in one morning parked my car, and went to the administration building. The place was deserted and I felt a tension in the air. I learned later that 10 minutes before I had arrived, the police had gone in and shot three students to death, then carted them off. Well I mean they were striking against the government, so what did they expect? T.I.A!

I immediately contacted friends and relatives back home because I “knew” that they would be worried. But nobody had even heard of the incident. Imagine the reaction to this sort of thing happening in North America (or recall the Kent State massacre)! I learned later that this way of dealing with student unrest was standard practice in neighbouring Kenya. You know Kenya, the African country that was held up as a model for how successful the post colonization of Africa could be, that Kenya. What I am saying is that this sort of thing was widely ignored by the Western media. It's not really news, not in Africa (T.I.A!).

I came back home realizing that democracy would not work in Africa, in particular it would not work in Uganda. I am convinced that what would happen is that the majority tribe there would gain power and then simply wipe out the other tribes. If you think I am exaggerating, witness what happened later in neighbouring Rwanda! It's all part of the culture. For hundred's perhaps thousands of years, one of the northern Ugandan tribes had the tradition of raiding other tribes. They would steal a cow or two from each other, and the raids would go on back and forth. It was “relatively harmless,” not too many people lost their lives! Now introduce AK 47's into the game! Not that anybody would do that, right? We would have heard about it right? What can I say? T.I.A!

No doubt some will explain away what I am saying as exaggeration, or at the very least not widespread. Sitting home in relatively safe environments (yes I know many part of the States are far from being safe) it is hard to imagine that such things exist or things that are as bad or worse being widespread and continuing to exist in our modern world. But we need to open our eyes. As I said even knowing what I knew, I found Mangalwadi's book eye opening. As bad as things are at times in the West, we still have very little idea what it would be like not to be able to take all sorts of positive traditional Western values for granted. I am thinking of such things as right of appeal, right to due process of Law, the possibility of blowing the whistle on corruption, basic human rights, freedom of speech etc. etc. All these things are in place as a direct result of our Judeo Christian heritage. So what is being used here is an integral part of the very things that are being trashed. On top of this, when moral relativists say things like “We must not impose our values on others, because to do so is to be repressive, insensitive and intolerant,” they are calling upon the virtues of sensitivity, tolerance and freedom which are in fact unique to the very Judeo Christian teachings the are seeking to dismiss!

I am not saying Western culture is perfect, it is not, and it is less and less so as time goes on. As I said above there are many places that are not safe as gangs run more and more amok in our cities, and prison populations grow and grow. But is this not a direct result of our having turned, and continuing to turn, our backs on the high value our ancestors placed on integrity, faithfulness, marriage and the family? As I blogged in July in “Harmless, wholesome and healthy?” there are traceable relationships between relaxing the divorce laws and fatherlessness, and between fatherlessness and crime, in other words between our increasing malaise and our increasing acceptance of moral relativism.

These things should be telling us something, but the big question is “are we listening?” The story of the camel and the Sheik is well known. Starting with the tip of it's nose, the camel inch by inch got it's whole body into the tent, then kicked out the Sheik. In the same way the well documented, militant, in your face, highly organized, well funded liberal agenda is content with nothing less than the total demise of traditional values. But as Mangalwadi argues very eloquently in his book, to do this is to undermine the very things that made Western Civilization great. Indeed, the ideas and the behaviours that flow from this militant liberalism are lemming like. Author James Burnham put this well even in the title of his book “Suicide of the West.” In other words by all of this we are slowly but surely heading towards our own demise, as we increasingly choose to trash everything, including our treasure!