Yesterday, on Hardball, a viewer sent in the first question, and Christopher Hitchens blew the non-answer.
The question was whether his lack of religious belief meant that he did not believe in absolute truth, and if he did not believe in absolute truth, then he did not believe in absolute morality, which meant there was no basis for convicting and jailing criminals. (A fair paraphrase, not an exact quote.)
This was something that Hitchens could have used to good purpose, but he instead accepted the claim that there is absolute truth, and changed the subject.
Here is how I would have answered the question.
The first point is an illustration of the weakness of the format, in which there is only one-way communication. My first answer would be to ask the question, "If there are absolute truths, name one."
I won’t carry that any further in this essay, and leave that to any who respond, because I don’t believe, like the conservatives do, in defining the positions of my opponents in a debate for them. I would simply make the point that I can’t think of an absolute truth.
And then continue that this does not mean that I don’t believe in truth. Having an absolute is not a requirement.
My metaphor to illustrate this is to ask the question, "Which bird is the best flier?" The answer, of course, is that many birds have excellent flying abilities, but that there are different abilities suited to the different needs of the birds. The fact that there is no one bird which is absolutely the best flier does not mean that no bird flies well.
The fact that there is no absolute truth does not mean that there is no truth. In fact, the quest for truth is a far nobler purpose than is its discovery. This is what science is about. Science is, indeed, an excellent example of what truth means. Scientific theories continually approach closer and closer to truth, but by their very nature, never arrive there. If they did, we would, in fact, have no way of knowing that they had. This is a good thing, in that it means that we will always have questions to investigate, something new to discover.
The leap from truth to morality is another of the many non-sequetors in the question. That aside, we must ask the same questions and make the same claim is in the claim for truth. We cannot name an absolute statement of morality that is valid at all times in all circumstances. And this denial of the absolute does not constitute a rejection of morality itself.
In both cases, what we deny are easy answers. That truth and morality are numinous and complex does not mean that they are completely subjective or non-existent. It means that the terms must be used with care, humility, and skepticism.
Finally, we come to the law. Again, we must be careful of the idea that law is a fixed, set, eternal, superhuman institution, with absolute standards of behavior independent of circumstance. The law, like government, like many things, including religions, is a man-made institution, and thus capable of error yet subject to criticism and improvement. It is one of many institutions and concepts necessary for society to function. And it is perfectly valid – far more so – because it is not subject to the limitations of the absolute.
The absolute is the refuge of the fascist. The absolute is far more a threat to freedom and security and dignity of the individual than are the false ideas of "relativism" or whatever that fascists and corporate conservatives use to frighten the unenlightened and justify their oppression.
Reject absolutes! Always!
Question authority! That’s an order!