Practicing What You Preach: Let's Think About Moral Relativism
If there is one topic I probably write about most, it is moral relativism. You know, the whole "That may be true for you, but not for me" thing? As an ideology, it is corrosive to society. As a personal conviction, you will lose credibility. Why, because no one can actually live that way! For instance, If I say there are a set of attributes that characterize a good mother, the relativist is bound to say, "Well that's relative." Let's see, however, whether or not anybody actually can live out this ideology.
Let's suppose a good mother is characterized by goodness, patience, long suffering, compassion, and a sacrificial heart. She wakes up early to prepare her children for the day. As the day goes on, she spends time with them and bonds with them. By night she prepares dinner and eats last, sometimes not eating at all when the budget is tight so that her children are full. She protects them, and assures their safety by watching over them.
These are moral judgments. This is a good mother. Unfortunately, the relativist has no grounding to establish good or bad. The relativist would conclude that these are likable attributes of a mother, but it doesn't actually make her a "good" mother. A "good" mother can just as easily be one who wakes up late to their child cooking breakfast in the efficiency kitchen of the local roach motel. She is burnt out by the cocaine she is addicted to, and subjects her daughter to the sight of her prostitution. Sure, it's an extreme example, but we've all seen the horror stories of people actually living like this.
The relativist cannot say that the former example is a good mother and the latter example is a bad mother, yet they cannot actually live out their convictions, because even they know that they would prefer the former. Moral relativism, "what's true for you, is not what's true for me," is not a philosophy, it is the empty headed, abdication of morality that seeks to justify the immorality that weighs heavy on the conscience of the relativist! Strange then, that this is what we teach in universities and is the general ideology of the youth in our decadent society. If moral relativism is a farce, we are in a most uncomfortable position of facing down an objective moral law and the consequences of trespassing against that law. Hence, the disingenuous escape route of "Well that might be true for you, but that's not true for me..."
Let's suppose a good mother is characterized by goodness, patience, long suffering, compassion, and a sacrificial heart. She wakes up early to prepare her children for the day. As the day goes on, she spends time with them and bonds with them. By night she prepares dinner and eats last, sometimes not eating at all when the budget is tight so that her children are full. She protects them, and assures their safety by watching over them.
These are moral judgments. This is a good mother. Unfortunately, the relativist has no grounding to establish good or bad. The relativist would conclude that these are likable attributes of a mother, but it doesn't actually make her a "good" mother. A "good" mother can just as easily be one who wakes up late to their child cooking breakfast in the efficiency kitchen of the local roach motel. She is burnt out by the cocaine she is addicted to, and subjects her daughter to the sight of her prostitution. Sure, it's an extreme example, but we've all seen the horror stories of people actually living like this.
The relativist cannot say that the former example is a good mother and the latter example is a bad mother, yet they cannot actually live out their convictions, because even they know that they would prefer the former. Moral relativism, "what's true for you, is not what's true for me," is not a philosophy, it is the empty headed, abdication of morality that seeks to justify the immorality that weighs heavy on the conscience of the relativist! Strange then, that this is what we teach in universities and is the general ideology of the youth in our decadent society. If moral relativism is a farce, we are in a most uncomfortable position of facing down an objective moral law and the consequences of trespassing against that law. Hence, the disingenuous escape route of "Well that might be true for you, but that's not true for me..."
"The wisdom of the prudent is to give thought to their ways,
but the folly of fools is deception.
Fools mock at making amends for sin,
but goodwill is found among the upright"
-Proverbs 14:8-9
I think the problem is what you stated "yet they cannot actually live out their convictions, because even they know that they would prefer the former." It's still a preference. Most people, maybe all people, prefer the first mother to the second mother. However, if the argument is that because we all have the same preference, that it is morally good, then there is a logical leap there that is not accounted for. Is the good simply what we all prefer? What if some people prefer a bad, such as in the case of abortion or polyamorous relationships. They would say "this is what we prefer."
ReplyDeleteThe good has to be based on something more than common preference. Even today we see that things which we assumed everyone prefer is no longer the case.