By Gaither Stewart
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Sep 18, 2007, 01:36
The Roman Catholic Church just cannot seem to get it right. As a rule, it is centuries behind. Perhaps in the name of the continuity its theologians harp on.
Shortly before he became Pope Benedict XVI in the year 2005, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the man behind the neoconservative politics of the World Church since the relatively liberal times of Pope John XXIII, delivered in his inimitable, sickly sweet style a ferocious denunciation of relativism: “We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goals one’s own ego and one’s own desires.”
The future pope said that Western liberal practices on contraception and abortion are in, but for the Catholic Church, they are out. For the church’s hierarchy, most modernity is out. Ratzinger warns constantly of the need to preserve the church's traditional Catholic tenets against such modern trends, especially against the "dictatorship of relativism."
Moral standards, the pope and Catholic conservatives believe, should be perfect and unchanging. Everywhere. Anywhere. Forever and ever, amen. The new leader of the Roman Catholic Church denounces specifically the idea that moral principles have no objective standards. Pope Benedict XVI characterizes moral relativism as the major evil facing the Church of Rome.
One justifiably wonders what he is driving at. You only have to listen to one of Pope Benedict’s Sunday or Wednesday messages in Rome or read the Catholic press to know: besides meddling in national politics, the pope attacks the tendency toward each and every relaxation and revision of traditional church prohibitions on matters like abortion, divorce, stem cell research, euthanasia, same sex marriage and, in general, the continuing secularization of political states.
Again, I turn to my trusty Italian Rizzoli encyclopedia for its entry on moral relativism: “Moral relativism is the philosophical doctrine that affirms the relativity of consciousness, that is, of what we consider good or evil.” It is the attitude that negates the possibility or the usefulness of arriving at absolute conclusions about matters like divorce or abortion.
Then online I read, “Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person’s individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves.”
Moral relativism is the idea that moral principles have no objective, bias-free standards. Its most extreme version is that there are no hard and fast rules on what is right and what is wrong, on which values are set, and should be fought for. Relativism thus contrasts with the categorical absolutism of religious fundamentalists, according to whom there exists one truth. Relativism means different opinions, as many truths as there are people or societies or cultures.
In our times, the Roman Church and conservative governments with authoritarian tendencies and religious fundamentalist natures, those like the United States of America, harp on values -- “family values, traditions and the future of our children.” Values are the favorite line of attack of American fundamentalists, of radical Islam and of the Roman Catholic Church, all of which claim to possess the true truth. The discussion is obviously explosive: everything is permitted at one extreme and ‘everything is forbidden’ at the other. Therefore I offer these considerations on the position of moral relativism vis-à-vis ethical values.
In Western society there are two opposing views on moral relativism that are summed up in the following responses to a recent BBC broadcast on our subject.
One: The pope is absolutely right. It's time to jettison the nonsense of moral relativism, which emerged in the social upheaval of the 1960s and has been responsible for the modern dysfunctional society we now have. You cannot have half-rights and half-wrongs; there is only right and wrong and we must face up to that truth even if it makes some people uncomfortable.
Two: The belief that there is only one moral truth and the conviction that you are following the only one moral truth is the source of all bigotry and hatred, in religion, politics and elsewhere. It allows you to demonize others as evil, refuse to see their point of view and refuse to accept that moral standpoints are based in culture and change alongside it.
My Rizzoli encyclopedia goes on to say that at the base of modern relativism stands the consideration of alterations to our consciousness (judgment), of what we believe right or wrong, caused by the subject himself and by conditioning by his social reality. Eighteenth century relativism considered the thought of Kant as an antecedent: Kant’s theory of consciousness constitutes the most coherent form of subjective relativism: man can never know reality as such.
Early Nineteenth century English philosophers founded their relativism based on such points. Spencer and others accepted such a line prudently, with conciliatory nods and prostrations toward religion: “Since the absolute escapes human consciousness, which is limited and relative, we are left with the legitimacy of faith.”
The reduction of life to faith sounds like Baptist faith.
Some pragmatists, however, find in the relativist position the practical and useful character of human awareness and judgment. Those who consider moral principles and values in general as significant ONLY in the society that elaborates and professes them represents the radicalization of relativism.
In considerations of relativism, Protagoras’ saying that “man is the measure of all things” seems to be an obligatory commonplace. However for the Greek Sophist such an affirmation implied a pure, non-relativistic defense of the rights of human intelligence against views of the constituted order and tradition.
Traditional philosophy had its own language. Terminology has however changed in modern times. Fundamentalist neoconservatives charge that moral relativism means that anything and everything is permissible. That a relativist society is adrift, out of control, degenerate and lawless.
In the book The War for Children’s Minds by Stephen Law, the author argues, as did Kant, that moral consciousness is founded on the rock of human reason and that children need to be taught from the beginning to think critically about moral judgments. Such a view might seem self-evident. But as we all know that is not the case.
Authoritarians of all shades and complexions, in all societies, claim the contrary. Fundamentalist authoritarians claim an external source for moral judgments -- they especially claim religious faith. They try to impose their wills on everyone else. In his book, Law criticizes proponents of organized religion. He is likewise dismayed by the British government’s subsidizing of religious schools. The author’s intent is to defend the basic philosophical principles of liberalism. The key to his argument is that people must take responsibility for their own moral judgments and not delegate such responsibility to others.
The fundamentalist view is that if everyone may have an independent moral opinion, then all moral positions are equally valid. Therefore, they believe, anyone who advocates moral autonomy is a “pernicious relativist” and a threat to society. For the neoconservative fundamentalist, always a hairsbreadth away from authoritarianism, just being a liberal is tantamount to supporting moral relativism.
Moral relativism has been accepted as the primary moral philosophy of modern society and its culture, which was previously dominated by a "Judeo-Christian" view of morality. While "Judeo-Christian" standards continue to be the foundation for civil law, most people today hold to the concept that right or wrong are not absolutes, but can be determined by each individual. Morals and ethics can be altered from one situation, person, or circumstance to the next.
The point is that only in its extreme form does moral relativism say that anything goes.
Moral relativism is a worldview. Liberal thinkers must reject the authoritarian affirmation that to determine which position to hold concerning morality, you must first determine what you believe about the origin of life. Are you a creationist or an evolutionist?
Evolution, liberalism and moral relativism go hand-in-hand, for evolution teaches that life is accidental; yet, admittedly, many people, many evolutionists too, have doubts. Precisely because of tradition and conditioning, one is unable to decide freely what one believes.
Tradition would have us believe that a powerful nation or a powerful faith is impossible without inequities and injustices. The reality is that like an individual, the more powerful a nation or a faith is, the less it needs morality at all. Without some kind of relativity, morality becomes, in the end, its opposite: immorality.
However, if you believe we are created, moral relativism cannot of course work. Creation implies a Creator God. And in the church interpretation, all things created are subject to a set of laws, whether natural or divine. Moreover, the creationist in our times is more likely to be a fundamentalist.
As an evolutionist, I cannot believe that anything goes. For after all there are natural laws that apply because we are all men.
Next, Part two: Modern Moral Relativism
Copyright © 2007 Gaither
Source: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2428.shtml
No comments:
Post a Comment