Moral Relativism: A Preview of Dr. Peter Kreeft’s Lecture
“Moral relativism will certainly end our species and damn our souls.”
These are the words that Dr. Peter Kreeft on his website quotes from C.S. Lewis’ The Poison of Subjectivism. On April 24, the Wabash Conservative Union will host Dr. Kreeft, a professor of philosophy at Boston College, to give a lecture entitled A Refutation of Moral Relativism. Dr. Kreeft has written several books about morality, including Back to Virtue, The Journey, Making Choices, What Would Socrates Do?, and a book whose title his lecture shares.
Moral relativism, a view that in general rejects the existence of objective moral truths, is a part of postmodern philosophy. Morality, relativists conclude, is a product of culture. Perhaps Dr. Kreeft himself provides the best definition of relativism on his website, where he explains in a transcript of an earlier lecture, “Moral relativism usually includes three claims: That morality is first of all changeable; secondly, subjective; and third[ly], individual.” Moral relativism is contrasted with moral absolutism, a position that assumes that there is one morality objectively superior to all others. For much of its history, moral absolutism has been the view held by, among others, the Judeo-Christians of the world. Dr. Kreeft provides a succinct summary of moral absolutism as “do[ing] the right thing,” and relativism as “if it feels good, do it.”
On his website, Dr. Kreeft claims, “The issue of moral relativism is merely the single most important issue of our age, for no society in all of human history has ever survived without rejecting [it].” He calls the relativistic philosophy “public enemy number one” and cites as proof the fact that the fascist Benito Mussolini once claimed “Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism, by intuition.”
But surely he overstates the facts. Relativism would not directly lead to fascism any more than Darwinism led to Nazism. Perhaps this is so, but the smaller effects that the philosophy of moral relativism has had on our culture are undeniable. We may debate whether these effects are positive or negative, but we certainly cannot deny their existence or their origin in the relativist movement. The widespread acceptance of the tenants of moral relativism has led to the acceptance of LGBT rights, the legalization of abortion and birth control, and, to some extent, the movement for tolerance and political correctness—all issues that have only incited debate within the past hundred years. Even here at Wabash we have seen relativism’s effects. Our college has disassociated from its Presbyterian roots and the traditional and legal practices concerning drinking.
Artwork by Adam Cooper '12
Some may still disagree with Dr. Kreeft’s assertion that this debate between relativists and absolutists is the “single most important issue of our age,” but consider the stakes. If moral absolutism became the consensus philosophy, our nation’s cherished tradition of religious and cultural tolerance would become immoral. We would also struggle to define which morality is superior and apply it. On the other hand, should moral relativism be accepted, religion would be in crisis. Relativism necessarily precludes the existence of the Judeo-Christian God who demands exclusive worship and who presents unequivocal moral teachings.
In his book Back to Virtue: Traditional Moral Wisdom for Modern Moral Confusions, Dr. Kreeft uncovers what he would call one of the biggest issues with relativism. He writes, “We have reduced all virtues to one: being nice.” Tolerance, it seems, is the most basic argument for accepting moral relativism. But what are the costs of this tolerance? As the opening quote of this article shows, C.S. Lewis does not have much optimism. Nor does Dr. Kreeft.
The moral debate is as polarizing as any ideological debate. Even within the conservative movement, we cannot reach a consensus on this verdict. Libertarians, with their stress on individual freedom, would tend to favor the philosophy of relativism, while neoconservatives would favor absolutism. To be sure, it is in part due to George W. Bush’s absolutist belief in the superiority of democracy that our country is entrenched in the current Iraq war.
Relativists tend to point toward tolerance and inability to distinguish which morality is superior as reasons for advocating relativism, while absolutists generally rely on religion or natural law. Absolutists also point out that relativism by definition must accept the validity of absolutism, since absolutism cannot be distinguished as “bad morality.”
Wabash has an excellent opportunity in Dr. Kreeft to hear a lecturer who has invested a great deal in his study of this important topic. We all have a vested interest in an adequate morality, as many of our daily decisions are based on it. The very survival of our society depends on the universal practice of some sort of morality, and it is to our benefit to understand our moral philosophy. Please join us on Friday, April 24 at 4:15 at Baxter 101 to hear Dr. Kreeft’s lecture.
Update: Get photos and all the latest commentary about this event
Related posts:
