Moral Relativism in Society.
The philosophy of relativism is very pervasive in our culture today. With the rejection of God, and Christianity in particular, absolute truth is being abandoned. Our society wants to avoid the idea that there really is a right and wrong. This is evidenced in our deteriorating judicial system that has more and more trouble punishing criminals, in our entertainment media which continues to push the envelope of immorality and evil, in our schools which teach evolution and "social tolerance," and etc. In addition, the plague of moral relativism is encouraging everyone to accept homosexuality, pornography, fornication, and a host of other "sins" that were once considered wrong but are now being accepted and even promoted in society. It is becoming so pervasive that if you speak out against moral relativism and its "anything goes" philosophy, you're labeled as an intolerant extremist. Of course, this is incredibly hypocritical of those who profess that all points of view are true, yet reject those who profess absolutes in morality. It seems that what is really meant by the moral relativists is that all points of view are true except for the views that teach moral absolutes, an absolute God, or absolute right and wrong.
First we must examine what is Truth? It is a very simple question. Of course, answering it isn't so simple. We can offer definitions like "Truth is that which conforms to reality, fact, or actuality." But this basic definition is not complete because its definition is open to interpretation and a wide variety of applications. What is reality? What is fact? What is actuality? How does perception affect truth? We could offer answers for each of these questions, but then we could again ask similar questions of those answers. There is a paradox of throwing a ball against a wall. It must get half way there, and then half way of the remaining distance, and then half of that distance, and so on. But, an infinite number of halves in this scenario never constitutes a whole. Therefore, it would seem that the ball would never reach the wall if we applied the conceptual truths of halves.
The ball-against-the-wall scenario simply illustrates that defining and redefining things as we try to approach a goal actually prevents us from getting to that goal. This is what philosophy does sometimes as it seeks to examine truth. It sometimes clouds issues so much, that nothing can be known for sure.
For the Christian, the ultimate expression of truth is found in the Bible, in Jesus who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life…" (John 14:6). Of course, most philosophers and skeptics will dismiss His claim, but for the Christian, He is the mainstay of hope, security, and guidance. Jesus, who walked on water, claimed to be divine, rose from the dead, and said that He was the truth and the originator of truth is the truth.
Some typical expressions that reveal an underlying presupposition of relativism are comments such as: "That is your truth, not mine;" "It is true for you, but not for me;" and "There are no absolute truths." Of course, these statements are illogical according to our Catholic faith. Relativism is invading our society, our economy, our schools, and our homes. Society cannot flourish nor survive in an environment where everyone does what is right in his own eyes, where the situation determines moral truth, and that lying and cheating are okay as long as you don't get caught. Without a common foundation of truth and absolutes, our culture will become weak and fragmented.
Furthermore, if all things are relative, then there cannot be anything that is absolutely true between individuals. In other words, if all people deny absolute truth and establish relative truth only from their experiences, then everything is relative to the individual. How then can there be a common ground from which to judge right and wrong or truth? It would seem that there cannot.
Of course, the issue that is important here is whether or not there are absolute truths. Also, can there be different kinds of absolute truths if indeed there are absolute truths? We might ask if it is always wrong to lie. Or, does 1 + 1 always equal 2? Is it always true that something cannot be both in existence and not in existence at the same time? Is it always true that something cannot bring itself into existence if it first does not exist? If any of these questions can be answered in the affirmative then relativism is refuted — at least to some degree.
More questions arise. If all moral views are equally valid, then do we have the right to punish anyone? Can we ever say that something is wrong? In order to say that something is wrong, we must first have a standard by which we weigh right and wrong in order to make a judgment. If that standard of right and wrong is based on relativism, then it is not a standard at all. In relativism, standards of right and wrong are derived from social norms. Since society changes, the norms would change and so would right and wrong. If right and wrong change, then how can anyone be rightly judged for something he did wrong if that wrong might become right in the future?
Many believe that this relativism is self-contradictory. So why has relativism gained a foot-hold in modern society? I think there are several factors contributing to its acceptance.
First, the success of science has increasingly promoted the idea that true answers are found within science. Many people believe that whatever "scientists" tell them is factual — and even good. When science cannot answer something, it simply states that the truth will become known later. With this, people have faith in science, and the only absolute is that what we know now may not be true later. Thereby, it can undermine absolute truth.
Second, with the broad acceptance of the evolutionary theory, God is pushed more and more out of the picture. Without God as a determiner of what is true and not true, we are left to do and believe "what is right in our own eyes."
Third, we are encountering more and more diverse cultures in the world. This tends to make us more comfortable with the idea that there is more than one way to do something, more than one way for a culture to operate, more than one way for something to be true or right. This isn't necessarily wrong, but it does contribute to a denial of absolutes.
Fourth, increasingly, the content of film and literature is moving away from the notion of the absolute and towards relativism. These media help shape our culture.
Fifth, there is an increase in relativistic philosophies, particularly those found in the New Agemovement which teaches that there is no absolute truth and that each person can create his own reality. Though this movement is part of the relativistic "problem," it is well permeated into society.
Sixth, past philosophers such as Wittgenstein, Khuh, Kant, Marx, and Neitsche, have influenced the thinking of many with their relativistic principles and attacks on absolute truths.
The problem I see with cognitive relativism is that it denies the possibility of absolute truth. Furthermore, I believe cognitive relativism is easily refutable with the following example of a logical absolute:
Something cannot bring itself into existence.
My proposed logical absolute is indeed logical and always true. Let’s look at this. For something to bring itself into existence, it has to perform an action. But for something to perform an action, it must first exist. If it first existed, then it cannot bring itself into existence because it already is existing. Likewise, if something does not exist then it is not possible for it to bring itself into existence, since it isn't there to do anything. This is an absolute truth and it is knowable. Since it is absolutely true, cognitive relativism, which states that all truth is relative, is false. To conclude, if relativism is true and all points of view are true, then is my view that relativism is false also true?