On the evils of "Relativism"

Lately, I have seen a rash of writing from conservative commentators complaining about the preponderance of relativism, and how it is causing society to crumble.

Typically the objection is that relativism is causing a breakdown in the "moral fibre" of society by removing absolute prohibitions against various "evils", and replacing them with what they perceive as "self-gratification" oriented perspectives.

They complain that the relativist position has no respect for the framework of boundaries that society is built upon. In its purest form, the notion of relativism is that everything is measured relative to its context. The conservative complaint is that doing so is fundamentally dangerous because there are no absolute prohibitions. Therefore, they complain, the acts of Clifford Olson (for example), could be condoned in a purely relativistic sense.

Further, the conservative will tend to associate (incorrectly), atheism, relativism and rationalism. In making such associations, the conservative - especially the religious conservative - will further assert that people arguing from a relativistic perspective are therefore also amoral.

First, the assumption that a relativist argument is amoral is fundamentally incorrect. Most people have very good moral compasses internally. We try to be courteous to those around us, and generally we don't go trying to do things that would hurt others. There are those whose moral compass doesn't quite work right, and we have a legal system for dealing with those people. In some cases, these people simply behave in a criminal manner, and wind up either in prison, on probation or otherwise supervised for some period of time. The most severe cases are people who suffer mental illness of some sort that inhibits their "moral compass", and thus provokes them into committing horrific acts.

Second, the religious conservative will tend to argue that without some kind of foundation (the Bible for many), you cannot have an adequate moral groundwork upon which to build a society. I will agree that a common understanding is necessary in order to build a successful social structure, but it is not necessarily the case that the understanding be based upon scripture or some mythological foundation. Canadian society grew up under the quasi-puritan influence of early immigrants, and our core laws have always reflected that past. (Remember, it was Pierre Trudeau that removed sodomy from the criminal code in the 1960s) Up to that point, we had a law present that was clearly derived from interpretation of Scripture. Talk to any 20-30 year old person today about bringing such a law back, and most of them will look at you as if you had just sprouted a horn from your forehead.

The conservative critics of relativist arguments worry that the relativist is acting in a purely selfish manner. From the conservative perspective, the problem is that people start doing "what feels right" rather than what is "right for society". The conservative notion is derived from the idea that personal sacrifice betters society.

Further, the conservatives accuse relativism of "bending with the trends". They claim that a relativist creates a problem by adjusting their beliefs as the context and information provided changes. It is true that a relativist will adjust their conclusions and beliefs based on new information. It is perhaps this single aspect of the relativist viewpoint that causes the conservative so much difficulty. Unlike the current conservative crop, a relativist will examine new information and ask themselves if it changes their understanding. The last 100 years have been filled with huge amounts of new information in a plethora of areas. Much of that information has caused people to begin questioning the validity of the assumptions that they have been using - and often concluding that the assumptions derived entirely from scripture are at best suspect.

Of course, we must bear in mind that the conservative is in fact a relativist as well. The very scriptures that the social conservatives of today use as some kind of absolute prohibition are inherently relativistic in nature. They were written by humans at some point in time. The scripture, even if it is divinely inspired, is still written by a human being relative to their momentary context in the world. In the Christian faith, this is painfully obvious in the distinctly different flavours of the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament speaks in highly legalistic terms, and is centered around a wrathful, angry God; the New Testament is much more allegorical in its wording, and speaks much more of forgiveness. There is a huge gap between when the books of the Old Testament were recorded compared to the New Testament. Unsurprisingly, they reflect very different societal needs.

So, the next time a Theo-Con complains about "relativism", it's a good thing to remember that they too are relativists - only working from different assumptions.