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."
No comments:
Post a Comment