Moral Relativity
The idea that because some moral precepts are culturally relative all moral precepts are meaningless is frequently encountered. Sometimes its proponent denies the ultimate existence of morality with regret but bitter experience suggests that most will professes their ethical nihilism with a sort of morbid glee. “What about murdering a child?” you ask in desperation—but no dice. You will be informed that the Kakapau people of Micronesia are obligated by their religion to sacrifice every child born after midnight during the Year of the Goat. What right do you have to impose your moral objection to infanticide upon that noble ancient custom?
Most forms of ethical nihilism rest on the false assumption that demonstrating the relative applicability of a moral precept is tantamount to demonstrating its ultimate invalidity. It is easier to feel that this must be fallacious than to point out where the fallacy lies but I find it helpful to draw an analogy to science. The laws of motion and the inverse square law of gravity formulated by Isaac Newton are (to quote Carl Sagan) "among the crowning achievements of the human species." And yet, when applied to objects travelling at or near the speed of light, they simply do not give the correct answer. In these instances scientists invoke the general and special theories of relativity formulated by Einstein—but these theories in turn are an inadequate description of the universe at the quantum level. All this shows that the developmental trajectory of science forever approaches and never reaches a final Truth. But each set of laws is still a description of reality that is completely true and valid within its particular frame of reference. Using Newtonian equations, for example, scientists are able to predict a solar eclipse to the minute a millennium in advance. These facts raise an insurmountable problem for the moral relativist because he must either declare that the laws of physics, because they cannot be universally applied, are invalid (which is absurd) or else admit that his assumption, Precepts of only relative validity are ultimately invalid is itself only relatively valid and therefore self-negating. The consequence of true moral relativism would be a repugnant apathy to every possible atrocity. But it need not upset anyone because its most salient attribute is its extravagant stupidity. Here is some free advice: If you ever find yourself in the position of having to defend an objection to murdering children, laugh merrily and raise your glass to moral relativity. By making any sort of intelligent objection you are either responding with naive sincerity to a disingenuous provocation or else indulging a fool. |