Dr. Forbush Thinks

When the Republican, conservatives, Christian Right or whoever complains about the world we live in, they tend to bring up the issue of moral relativism faster than kids running to a Bar-B-Q. The complaint tends to be that moral relativism allows each person to determine what is “right” and what is “wrong” based on ones personal standards. But, the lines are blurred here, because the exact rules and laws become the issues that are argued about.

So, lets begin with an example that the Republicans argue should not be decided by moral relativism - sexuality. Conservatives tend to believe that there is a long history of tradition that dictates what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in regard to “sexuality.” The non-religious conservative position on this issue is to “preserve tradition.” Under this guidance “traditional marriage” is the only place for sexual relations. In order to preserve the appearance of adhering to this tradition, many customs and formalities were built into society as a way to pretend that this “tradition” actually mattered. The entire structure of dating etiquette was an effort to allow men and women to meet, but preserve the illusion of purity until marriage tradition. In addition to this dating etiquette there were traditions for what to do if one doesn’t quite stick to these traditions as well. For example, the man should marry the woman if she should become pregnant. Of course this could never happen if the tradition were followed, but by tradition the tradition was not followed. Little is mentioned of the long tradition of pre-marital sex, homosexual relationships, mistresses and other trifles hidden as the secrets of society, because they were occurred behind closed doors.

Maybe the tradition existed because of religion, or maybe the religious law existed because of the tradition, but since it dates back that far we can not know for certain. Those who are religious believe that their religious laws are quite important, and they don’t see a difference between these laws and the secular laws passed by government and enforced by the police. After all, murder is both a religious law and a secular law, why can’t all the religious laws be made secular laws as well? Before the “1960s social upheaval” there were cohabitation laws where a man and a woman could not live together unless they were married. This law was religious law passed into secular law by religious people. And, religious people long for the day when they could make all of their religious laws into secular laws as well. Then the police could enforce them and their children could be kept safe from the temptation of violating these laws. So, what prevents secular society from passing religious laws?

The answer of course comes down to the moral relativism argument. The religious people have determined by their religious tradition that certain rules and laws should be adhered to by the faithful. These rules and laws are specified by their interpretation of their religious texts and the tradition passed down from eons ago. These laws hold weight because of the tradition associated with them. The non-religious non-traditional people believe in secular laws created to help society function, but not to dictate what people should do without purpose. They believe that murder and theft are valuable laws that prevent mayhem and chaos and therefore help society function better. But, making laws that prevent people from living with one another is an arbitrary law that doesn’t help society run smoothly. Perhaps some people could make a counter argument, but the point is that people debate the laws and then people create laws that they want to live by in order to have a more harmonious society. Religious text may influence some of the people making these laws, but it also has little effect on others. In other words, some issues are morally relative, depending on your personal view of religion, including what particular religion or belief system you personally use.

This means that society can agree on a core set of values that everyone agrees with. For example, I believe that everyone agrees that murder is wrong. Even though we have exceptions to this rule, which we have also agreed upon, murder is wrong. Some people may not agree with punishing a person who murders by murdering him, and others believe that this is the only way to punish someone who takes a life - by taking his. So, it is morally relative that some groups believe that murder is always wrong, and some groups believe that murder is mostly wrong except under some circumstances. Similarly, some people believe that selling nails on Sunday is morally wrong, because the person who buys them is certainly going to work on the Sabbath with those nails. In fact, the person selling the nails is in moral violation for working the cash register. Similarly, some people believe that man should not improve upon what God has given him, therefore trying to save a life with medical technology is morally wrong to them, while the majority of Western Civilization believes that man should use whatever God has given us to prevent a death. It is morally relative to believe in one side or the other in this issue. But the secular laws of society have ruled that doctors are allowed to save lives.

There will always be crazy religions that are based on crazy interpretations of crazy or even sane religious texts. Sometimes a large number of influential people are persuaded to follow a crazy religion. Sometimes a crazy idea gets a large number of people to support it. This idea may be sane or it may be insane, but either way the majority can make it a secular law for the entire society. The law may help society function better, or it may hinder the way society functions. But society isn’t static. New people will create new generations with new attitudes and new ideas. The new generation will continually reevaluate the old laws and if they no longer function, the new generation will eventually gain the majority and they will be able to change the old laws. Unfortunately, this process takes quite a while, and a generation of people need to suffer with the old prohibitive laws. But, there is hope when we know that society is dynamic.

So, moral relativism allows us to say that we don’t have to accept every crazy religious person’s idea of morality. If a Jehovah Witness wants to argue that America is a religious country therefore we should not celebrate holidays, including Christmas, do we all have to agree with their moral idea about holidays? If a Jewish person quotes the non-kosher nature of pork from the Bible, do we all need to agree that a secular law against the production of pork is necessary? If a Muslim tells us that the Koran allows him to have as many wives as he can afford should we change the secular laws to allow for that? These are all morally relative points of view that we all accept everyday. So, when the Religious Right complains about moral relativism being a bane on society, tell them that they have their own moral reference frame and you choose not to live in it.






-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics