What’s Wrong with being Right?

The Truth About Moral Relativism

By Rabbi Yoseph Kahanov Jax, FL

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, Michigan, 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 may be fine and good, no one said the guy was a saint. Between you and me, he was known to have made a few people disappear. . . But you shouldn’t rush to judgment. Don’t forget that he was always kind to his mother! Does that count for nothing? Trust me; the man was a real Mentch!”

—————————————————–

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 and unencumbered in denouncing any objective standard of morality, and by no means was he alone. The notion that truth and reality are 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 standards 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 absurd contention that differing systems have equal validity, with no standard for adjudicating among conflicting beliefs. Greek historian Herodotus was rather 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 notable 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.” More specifically there is “Meta-ethical relativism,” which maintains that morality not stand subject to universal truth conditions, but rather to societal convention and personal preference. It insists that one cannot adjudicate these using some independent standard of evaluation — the standard will always be societal or personal.

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 toxic; bereft of the minutest fraction of good. This twisted outlook is sure to undermine any secure foundation for morality, which in turn results in the widespread moral degeneration that is so common today.

Many have argued that Europe’s displacement of absolute values by means of moral relativism; 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 importance; a form of poetic justice. As a result, the population vacuum in Europe has currently been filled by immigrants, often from Islamic countries, who seek to reestablish absolute values which stand at odds with moral relativism.

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 essence and definition 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, nor has it ever been so blatantly focused against G-d and religion. 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.

The ingrate mentality, which used to be considered the lowest of the low, has now become commendable. We are hence subjected to radio and TV advertisements that openly encourage us to screw our lenders; the people and institutions that were kind enough help us to purchase our homes in the first place. They are not even ashamed to disclose that the basis for turning on the people who helped us and trusted us, is none other than technical error.

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 that there is a glaring 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 and powerful 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 counts.

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 completely 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 this week’s 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.

Our Parsha proceeds to admonish: “Should there rise up in your midst a prophet or a dreamer of a dream – and he will [even] produce for you a sign or a wonder . . . saying: ‘Let us follow G-d’s of others, which you did not know, and we shall worship them!’ Do not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams. . .” does this sound like moral relativism? Is there any room at all to maneuver?

And just in case someone is so thick and still hasn’t gotten it, Moshe continues in the proceeding Parsha to make it 200 present clear: “According to the teaching that they will teach you and according to the judgment that they will say to you, shall you do; you shall not deviate from the word that they will teach you, right or left.” It’s now clear as day.

Just to make sure you really understand how the Torah really feels about moral relativism , the commentaries give it one more shot. They do it with their astounding interpretation on the above verse. They creatively interpret the Torah’s intent vis-à-vis the right and left comment, to mean that one must obey the Torah and its guardians in each generation; even if he is convinced that it is wrong – even if it seems to be telling you that right is left and left is right. So much for moral relativism, or subjective morality.

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.