The Intolerance Of Absolute Moral Relativists
by Dale O'Leary
The law of non-contradiction holds that two statements which are logically contradictory cannot both be true. For example, either there is a God or there is no God. If there is a God, either He is just or He is not just. Now if God is just, then He would have to reveal the criteria by which He will execute justice, because it certainly wouldn't be just to judge people without informing them ahead of time as to which behaviors will be condemned.
Moral relativists insist that no one can know for sure if there is a God, if He is just, or what his criteria for judgment might be. Therefore, everyone is free to decide for himself what is right and what is wrong.
This may sound tolerant and accepting, but in fact most of those who claim to be tolerant moral relativists are actually absolutists. They neither respect nor tolerate any opinion but their own. They are absolutely certain that anyone who believes that a loving God would not leave us in the dark as to what right and wrong is not only personally deceived, but actively trying to deceive others.
Absolute moral relativists believe that their opinions about what is right and what is wrong are correct and they want their opinions enforced by law. For example, most absolute moral relativists believe:
-
that women have an inalienable right to abortion
-
that any law that interferes in anyway with a woman's exercise of that "right" is evil
-
that no one who does not accept abortion as a human right should be allowed to be a federal judge
This is, of course, what the entire debate about the appointment of judges by President Bush is really all about.
And there are other "rights" about which absolute moral relativists are absolutely sure, such as the "right" to marry a person of the same sex. According to them, anyone who opposes such a "right" is guilty of bigotry, intolerance, and hate speech — capital offenses in the eyes of the absolute moral relativists.
Absolute moral relativists are relativists only in that they believe that right and wrong should be defined relative to their current opinion on the matter. They retain the right to change their view tomorrow and expect their new opinions to be enforced by "evolving" judicial decisions. Hence the importance of judges.
Absolute moral relativists absolutely reject God's law, natural law, tradition, and custom. On what then do they base their certainty?
They would like to have people believe that their certainty flows from scientific evidence. They pretend that science supports their claim that the unborn child is not a human person. They claim to have studies showing that the relationship between two persons of the same sex is in everyway the same as marriage between a man and a woman. In fact, no such evidence exists. The evidence supports traditional moral law, which is not surprising since the Revealer is also the Creator.
Absolute moral relativists often cite polls as justification for their stances. For them polls prove that what was good yesterday may be evil tomorrow. However, when the polls do not support the position taken by the absolute moral relativists — as for example, the overwhelming public rejection of so-called "same-sex" marriage — they accuse the public of reactionary stupidity.
Some absolute moral relativists defend their moral absolutism with Neo-Marxist reasoning. Whatever gives power to the oppressed class is good; whatever punishes the oppressors is bad. Women are an oppressed class therefore they have a right to abortion. Persons with same-sex attractions are an oppressed class therefore they have a right to redefine marriage. However, if one points out that unborn babies scheduled for abortion are clearly the most oppressed class, since they are killed by the hundreds of thousands, the oppressed class argument is tossed aside.
So where do absolute moral relativists get their certainty about right and wrong? From their lusts and desires. Since their lusts and desires can change, absolute moral relativists need an ideology that allows them to change the definition of right and wrong. Absolute moral relativism works for them.
There is no point in arguing with absolute moral relativists because there is nothing — not evidence, not logic, not concern for the suffering their unbridled lusts may cause — that can overrule their desires. All one can do — and what we must do — is expose their absolutism.
Dale O'Leary is a writer, pro-family activist and educator living in Rhode Island. Her e-mail address is [email protected].
This item 6484 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
