What’s Wrong With Being Right? – The Truth About Moral Relativism

When Robert A. Rockaway, a recognized authority on Jewish-American history, decided to chronicle the story of the Jewish mob, he sought out Jewish old-timers in order to gather information on this less than reputable element.

Rockaway even interviewed his own mother, a native of Detroit, who personally knew some friends and family members of the nefarious subjects of his research.

Once, while talking to his mother about the reprehensible conduct of a particular mobster, his mother stopped him short in his tracks: “All that you say is fine and dandy, no one said the guy was a saint… But you shouldn’t rush to judgment. Don’t forget that he was always kind to his mother! Does that count for nothing? I’ll have you know that he was a real Mentch!” (Parsha Parables)

—————————————————–

No great, inspiring culture of the future can be built upon the moral principle of relativism. For at its bottom such a culture holds that nothing is better than anything else, and that all things are in themselves equally meaningless. Except for the fragments of faith (in progress, in compassion, in conscience, in hope) to which it still clings, illegitimately, such a culture teaches every one of its children that life is a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing – Michael Novak

—————————————————–

In proclaiming that “Man is the measure of all things,” Greek philosopher Protagoras, was quite patent in denouncing any objective standard of morality, and by no means was he alone. The notion that truth is perceived differently from divergent points of view and that no single point of view is the complete truth, has from time immemorial been the mantra of Divine rebellion.

The challenge to any objective, absolute standard pertaining to values has long been blamed on the vast differences of belief that exists among the multitude of societies, as depicted by the academic fields of anthropology and sociology.

This phenomenon has bolstered both the social scientists’ and philosophers’ contention that differing systems have equal validity, with no standard for adjudicating among conflicting beliefs. Greek historian Herodotus was candid about this idea – attributing it to the fact that each society regards its own belief system and way of doing things, as superior to all others.

The well-known postulation by Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) that “Nothing is inherently good or evil,” has been credited for the revival of this philosophy in the early modern era. It has been farther popularized in the18th-century by Enlightenment philosopher David Hume (1711–1776), who is considered by some to be the father of both modern emotivism and of moral relativism.

Anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict (1887–1948) cautioned against “Ethnocentricism” — using the standards of one’s own culture to evaluate subjects of study. Benedict said that morals do not exist, only customs do; and that in comparing customs, the anthropologist “Insofar as he remains an anthropologist . . . is bound to avoid any weighting of one in favor of the other.”

Finnish philosopher-anthropologist Edward Westermarck (1862–1939) ranks as one of the first to formulate a detailed theory of moral relativism. He portrayed all moral ideas as subjective judgments that reflect one’s upbringing. He rejected the ethical intuitionism of the early part of the 20th century, which identified moral propositions as true or false, because of the obvious differences in beliefs among societies, which he said provided evidence of the lack of any innate and intuitive power. In our current day and age the credo exists in the form of “Moral relativism.”

Another term is “Normative relativism,” which not only espouses the meta-ethical thesis, but attaches to it normative implications on what we ought to do. For example, since there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, the behavior of others, even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards, ought to be treated with equal validity and respect.

It is needless to say that the theory of moral relativism, in all its forms, is morally, spiritually and socially bereft of the minutest fraction of good. It is sure to undermine any secure foundation for morality, which in turn results in the widespread moral degeneration that is so common today.

Some would argue that Europe’s distain for absolute values – its mass abandonment of the bulk of traditional norms rooted in religion, replacing it with continuously-evolving relative moral rules – has led to its decline in population and stature.

The population vacuum in Europe is being filled by immigrants, often from Islamic countries, who seek to establish a radical form of absolute values at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum of the moral relativism they so cherish. Due to their extreme open mindedness of moral relativity, they are unable to oppose this form of radicalism. Talk about poetic justice.

More important however is the fact that moral relativism is diametrically opposed to the existence of G-d. The notion that there is no such thing as good, bad, right, and wrong, could not be more insulting to the existence of a Divine Creator and Supreme Being. G-d’s very essence is truth, He is by definition the arbiter of good, bad, right, wrong, holy, unholy, pure and impure. There is no mistaking, to deny this reality is to take laser sharp aim at His very existence and to pull the trigger.

The debate over objective morality is not new by any stretch of the imagination. Still it has never been as popular among the masses. The ramifications of this ever pervading issue seem more relevant now than ever before.

There is mounting evidence that moral relativism is, in fact, deemed the more “fair” or “neutral” ideology compared with the alternative “Hard-line” stance on morality.

A 2002 column by news analyst Bill O’Reilly, who finds himself mystified as to why it is “Wrong to be right,” cites Zogby poll data indicating that 75% of American college professors teach that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Rather, they treat the questions of good and evil as relative to “Individual values and cultural diversity.”

One has to wonder whether there is any connection between this burgeoning ideology and the ever growing crisis into which our country tends to be slipping. Cheating appears to have become the way of the land. The only thing that seems to change is the method.

A decade ago the market was the means of the theft and deception. The system has become corrupted to the point where faith in our blue-chip corporations has been completely shattered. Since the turn of the century the U.S. has seen some of the largest and most devastating corporate bankruptcies and pension deficits ever, many of which were spurred by fraud, greed and scandal. Presently the means has shifted to government rip off’s and legalized mortgage fraud.

Things, like defaulting on one’s mortgage and accepting government handouts – which of course, are now called bailouts – used to be considered disgraceful and embarrassing, have now become fashionable and even admirable.

Neither is the problem limited to the financial sector. The cheating bug seems to have infiltrated all areas of our culture, from government and media to sports and education. A survey conducted by Northwestern University revealed that half of 527 randomly selected journalists surveyed, admitted to have seen unethical behavior in their newsroom.

60%-75% of high school students admit to some cheating academically. It is likewise no secret that competitive sports, from professional to amateur, are saturated with the illegal use of steroids in order to gain an unfair advantage. A 2001 CDC survey indicated that 5% of all high school students reported lifetime use of steroids without a doctor’s prescription. There is of course no need to discuss the scandals inherent within our government, as they are so prevalent and notorious.

It is hard to deny the connection between the prevailing cultural attitude of moral relativism and the steady moral and ethical deterioration and decline that has gripped our culture. The question of moral relativism has everything to do with our core belief in the origin and purpose of life. It has everything to do with the way we live our lives.

There is a clear correlation between the belief in moral relativism and the moral and ethical standard of a society. For if there are no absolutes, then nothing is right and nothing is wrong; everything is then acceptable, because ultimately nothing matters. On the other hand, if one believes that there is an absolute Divine code of morality and ethics, his every action then makes a great difference.

For the Jew the notion of moral relativism is twice as absurd, since it is diametrically antithetical to the Torah – the foundation and constitution of Judaism. Judaism and moral relativism are as paradoxical as say, a vegetarian who eats meat, a generous miser, or an honest thief. It is oxymoronic; the two simply don’t go together.

Just in case Judaism’s position on moral relativism is not self understood, the Torah, in the beginning of our Parsha, makes sure to spell it out explicitly. This issue is indeed the subject of the opening verse of Parsha, Re’ei: “See, I present before you today a blessing and a curse. The blessing: That you hearken to the commandments of the Lord your G-d, that I command you today. And the curse: If you do not hearken to the commandments of the Lord your G-d, and you stray from the path that I command you today . . .” (Deuteronomy 11: 26). Is there any ambiguity in these words?

The Torah cannot be more clear about the fact that that there is a right and G-dly way and a wrong ungodly way. The Torah further describes in simple and concise language and that the two alternatives are as distinct as day and night; as a blessing and a curse.

In conclusion, for the sake of G-d and for the sake of humanity let us be clear that the notion of subjective morality is plain wrong. Moral relativism makes a mockery of G-d and threatens the foundation and moral fabric of society as a whole.

Through our acceptance of the Divine will regarding morality and spirituality we will certainly merit His abundant blessings, as promised  in our Parsha, with the ultimate blessing of the Messianic era  BBA.