The Dangers of Moral Relativism

©2001 by Dale Franks

Say what you want about the Romans, but they had few illusions about what it meant to be engaged in a clash of civilizations. During the war with Carthage, Roman senators began every speech to the Senate with the words "Carthago delenda est" (Carthage must be destroyed). The Romans didn't believe in doing things by half measures. In the end, Rome did destroy Carthage. The city was razed to the ground, the rubble was plowed under, and the soil sown with salt. Carthage ceased to be a problem for the Romans.

In the comfortable, affluent civilization of the West, people with such clarity can be a little harder to find nowadays, especially among the intellectual elites. They are the moral relativists, from whom we are starting to hear a familiar refrain. "Of course," they tell us, "We think that what these terrorists did was wrong. But they believe they were right to do what they did. So, who gets to decide that we are right and they are wrong?"

Well, of course, if that's the standard, then we can never punish anyone for anything. After all, Adolf Hitler thought what he was doing was right. Who are we to criticize the legitimate national aspirations of the German people? The trouble with the relativist argument is that evil people never believe they are doing evil. They always have a justification.

A few days prior to writing this, I heard a report of four Skinheads who were assaulting a Muslim man in the street. Aren't they simply doing what they feel is right? And if so, then by the reasoning above, isn't it wrong for us to condemn them?

Of course it isn't.

One of the key features of Western civilization is the recognition of transcendent standards of right and wrong. Even on a strictly utilitarian basis, there must be some generally agreed-upon standard of conduct. If not, then there cannot be a functioning civilization.

We don't punish murderers based on whether the murderer believed he was committing an evil act. We do so because murder is, ipso facto, evil, by an objective, utilitarian standard. Just as Hitler didn't get a pass for killing millions of people because Nazi ideology allowed it, Skinheads don't get a pass for assaulting people in the streets, because their ideology allows it.

The logical result of the relativist thinking that permeates much of post-modern, deconstructionist thought is the elimination of any objective standards of right and wrong, and with it, the concomitant ability to justify punishing anyone for anything.

In such an environment, what is "right" is determined solely on the basis of the power wielded by whatever group becomes dominant. Whatever else that may be, it isn't civilization by any commonly accepted standard. I expect that in such a society, there wouldn't be much relativist thinking, since those who engage in it are likely to be executed as soon as they upset the dominant group.

Which illustrates the true paradox, of course. Post-modernist thought, which denies the objective moral underpinnings of Western civilization, is allowed only in societies with liberal, Western values. I suppose that to be merely another indication of how morally confused Western civilization has become.

Make no mistake about it, such moral confusion is a danger to the very survival of our civilization. If we cannot make a moral distinction between intentionally killing thousands of innocent civilians, and defending ourselves against those that do, then we simply cannot summon the will to do what is necessary to defend ourselves, and our civilization will be lost.

So, the answer to the relativist question of who gets to decide is that WE do. WE get to decide because we are the products of the civilization that brought modern science and technology to the world, eliminated chattel slavery, separated church from state, championed the ideas of individual liberty, and spread the concept of personal freedom. WE get to decide because, after centuries of struggle, we have risen above the tribal barbarism of our adversaries, while they have remained in the medieval past.

So, unlike the relativists, I am perfectly happy to use the military to root out and destroy the Islamist threat, just as I would intervene to keep the Skinheads from assaulting an innocent person in the street. Because, unlike them, I do not suffer from moral confusion about the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, or innocence and guilt.

Top