Moral relativism is the belief that there is no universal justification for moral actions or objective truth. Furthermore, since there is no moral standard for actions, moral conduct becomes relative to the beholder of the action. This presents three main problems: first, by invalidating the sense of right and wrong, one becomes tolerant to thoughts and actions of others that may be coherently wrong; second, truth transforms from natural law to a delineated variation of one’s personal beliefs; and third, by disestablishing oneself from any sort of objective reasoning, any action or thought becomes justified. I will show these ideas through an assimilation of C.S. Lewis’view on Natural Law while both explaining and critiquing moral relativism itself. Relativism, today more than ever, plagues American culture because of degradation of morals by means of popular society and media; the divination of secular ideals and temporal power; and the dis-allowance of religion by the younger generation, all masked under tolerance and co-existence.
As I have already alluded to, moral relativism presents three main concerns. Although these concerns may start moderately, they gradually domino into precarious thoughts that are susceptible to individual desire, as well as threatening to modern day thought.
As I have already alluded to, moral relativism presents three main concerns. Although these concerns may start moderately, they gradually domino into precarious thoughts that are susceptible to individual desire, as well as threatening to modern day thought.
The first thing moral relativism implies is the tolerance of truth based upon beliefs from personal experiences. This leads to norm of statements such as: “Pro Choice, but personally opposed” in which one believes something to be wrong, but does not impose their beliefs upon someone who thinks differently. Although this does not fault the personally opposed pro choicest’s to the same degree as the abortionists doing the action, it still indirectly allows, what they believe to be murder, to be permitted. In addition to this, allowing something you believe is wrong seems like a ridiculous stance to take in the first place. This would be the equivalent of stating “Pro Child-Murder, but personally opposed.” Regardless of whether the personally opposed murder children or have abortions themselves, the indirect allowing of the action is still morally wrong. These stances, therefore, become a failed attempt at trying to appeal to both sides of a dissertation without actually taking a position.
Once one submits to the tolerance of others beliefs, the second domino will fall. The relativist will soon see that there is little alteration between oneself tolerating others, and others tolerating them. This is to say that as long as one shows beliefs that can be delineated by their personal feelings, those beliefs are personally justifiable. This idea is even more dangerous than the personally opposed pro choicest, for it allows abortionists themselves to exclaim in defense: “Abortion is right for me, if it is not right for you do not have one.” Using the same example from above, one can discern see why this statement would alarm someone who personally believed abortion was murder. “Murdering children is right for me, if you don’t like it, don’t murder children.”
Once one’s logic gets them thus far, it is not hard for them to disestablish themselves from reasoning all together. To the degree that if one wants to kill their two year old daughter, who are they to judge their decision. At this point, not only ideas that are contended topics become permissible, but rather, any action that can be explained through any form of reasoning. “I shot my wife because she didn’t make me dinner” Although this does not seem like a legitimate excuse to shoot ones wife, since it is the man’s personal belief ‘Who am I to judge.’ While ‘pro-choice but personally opposed’, might not believe these statements, they are indirectly accepting the premises and are prone to believing in the ideas themselves.
Once one agrees that disestablishing oneself from objective reasoning is wrong, they are left with natural law. Natural law is basically the belief that there is right and wrong, and the knowledge of right and wrong is naturally known through reason. Natural law is proven just by the fact that people believe that there is right and wrong. If one were to walk into a bank, and take his place in the front, of a relatively long line, people, who had been previously waiting, might state. “You can’t do that, it’s not fair.” This is to say, that there is a general presumption of truth in which people believe to be “fair.” Stemming from this standard of ‘fairness’ one is able to determine universal meanings for what is right and wrong, much like the laws and rules set forth by every society. Because there is free will and relativism, one has the option of disobeying these laws and doing what they believe to be right, however, their actions can be punished by the majority if they believe the action to be wrong.
Once one submits to the tolerance of others beliefs, the second domino will fall. The relativist will soon see that there is little alteration between oneself tolerating others, and others tolerating them. This is to say that as long as one shows beliefs that can be delineated by their personal feelings, those beliefs are personally justifiable. This idea is even more dangerous than the personally opposed pro choicest, for it allows abortionists themselves to exclaim in defense: “Abortion is right for me, if it is not right for you do not have one.” Using the same example from above, one can discern see why this statement would alarm someone who personally believed abortion was murder. “Murdering children is right for me, if you don’t like it, don’t murder children.”
Once one’s logic gets them thus far, it is not hard for them to disestablish themselves from reasoning all together. To the degree that if one wants to kill their two year old daughter, who are they to judge their decision. At this point, not only ideas that are contended topics become permissible, but rather, any action that can be explained through any form of reasoning. “I shot my wife because she didn’t make me dinner” Although this does not seem like a legitimate excuse to shoot ones wife, since it is the man’s personal belief ‘Who am I to judge.’ While ‘pro-choice but personally opposed’, might not believe these statements, they are indirectly accepting the premises and are prone to believing in the ideas themselves.
Once one agrees that disestablishing oneself from objective reasoning is wrong, they are left with natural law. Natural law is basically the belief that there is right and wrong, and the knowledge of right and wrong is naturally known through reason. Natural law is proven just by the fact that people believe that there is right and wrong. If one were to walk into a bank, and take his place in the front, of a relatively long line, people, who had been previously waiting, might state. “You can’t do that, it’s not fair.” This is to say, that there is a general presumption of truth in which people believe to be “fair.” Stemming from this standard of ‘fairness’ one is able to determine universal meanings for what is right and wrong, much like the laws and rules set forth by every society. Because there is free will and relativism, one has the option of disobeying these laws and doing what they believe to be right, however, their actions can be punished by the majority if they believe the action to be wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment