Dear Friends,
As the week of the election is upon us, may I make a philosophical observation from a platform that is a bit above the fray – in an attempt to explain reasons for the fray.
One of the reasons for the increasing division among us is the rise of moral relativism in much of the U.S. population. Relativists conclude that there are no moral objective norms. They may reach that conclusion because of cultural or individual differences. Or the very fact that people disagree over morality makes it seem impossible to arrive at any moral truths.
Although it is true that people and cultures disagree on moral issues, it does not follow that moral norms or principles do not exist. When people make the odd comment that morality should be kept out of government laws, that each person should be able to make their own choices, they clearly are not thinking about the majority of our laws that make moral claims – laws that criminalize murder, rape, theft, and fraud. If the moral life is no more than a reflection of people’s individual tastes, preferences, and orientations, then we cannot tell young people that it is morally wrong to lie, steal, cheat, and drop out of school, even though these behaviors may be consistent with the student’s own personal tastes and preferences.
People often confuse preference claims with moral claims. The statement, I like Starbucks coffee, is a description of a person’s subjective taste. It is not a claim as to what a person ought or ought not to do. It is not saying, “Because I like Starbucks, the government should make Starbucks available to all people, everyone in the world should drink their coffee.” A preference claim tells us nothing about what one ought to think or do.
A moral claim, on the contrary, tells us what we ought or ought not to do. It has little to do with what a person likes or dislikes. Sometimes moral claims work against what someone may like. Maybe somebody really likes killing people without justification. Only the moral law is stopping them from doing so since they claim it is their individual choice.
On the issue of abortion, this confusion is most often the case. The moral debate gets reduced down to personal preferences, “If you do not like abortion, do not have one.” Or the issue of tolerance comes to the front of the argument because many people see relativism as necessary for people to exist together in a community. It suggests that we should not judge one another for to do so would be intolerant. However, the very fact that people have different views does not mean we should not seek moral truth any more than the existence of disease, hunger, torture and slavery means we should value them. I do not think most moral relativists would be okay with remaining neutral when it comes to rape and murder and slavery.
Studying the debates on the morality of slavery that took place in our country prior to the Civil War are quite revealing. As my philosophy teachers taught me long ago, once we come to the recognition that any act should be put into a class of “wrongs”, the logic of the recognition forbids us from treating that act any longer as a matter of personal taste or choice. When we are persuaded by the truth of the moral conclusion, we must live and act differently. For this reason, people were willing to go to war – to preserve a union, free of slavery.
There is a bit of a moral morass among us as we approach this election, and it will not be ended with the election. Perhaps, you and I can commit to engaging others in the search for moral truth. Jesus did give us clear teachings but most of the moral standards are not rooted in Jesus’ teachings alone. The same truths can be reached through a rational search guided by foundational principles. Whether or not your neighbors and coworkers are Christian, we need to build a better world on the solid foundation of truth and love.
Blessings as we live this week together.
Fr. Damian