Moral relativism is one of the Far Right's favorite targets for castigation. They decry its very existence as the antithesis of their form of morality. Without religion, they contend, there can be no morality. Religion is a form of moral absolutism. As the very name implies, moral absolutism is dogmatic, descending from truths that are immortal and immutable. Relativism is not based on absolutes; rather, it descends from the one thing absolutists are taught not to trust: human judgment. Moral relativism requires critical thought and self-awareness. It is the thinking man's morality, and, because of this, cannot be grounded in unerasable axioms. For all this, moral relativism is the only honest kind of morality. What's more, even the absolutists practice it.
Religion itself can be a wonderful thing. Much good has been accomplished in the name of god or gods throughout recorded history. Religion also provides two important social tools. First, it provides security: security from the unknown by proffering an explanation of life's mysteries and security from loneliness by providing a sense of community and belonging. Second, it provides order by teaching morals. Instead of engaging in critical analysis of those morals, they are passed down as immutable laws, to be obeyed because something huge and unknowable in its entirety threatens dire retribution for not following them. This entity cannot be questioned, because to question it would require proof of its existence, and proof is antithetical to that which it demands: faith. To lose this faith would have you removed from the community, making you alone and faced with questions in the face of a large, scary world. And so, adherence to a social order is formed. Morals, then, form the laws of behavior for the community, and, since they come from a deity, are absolute.
This creates a very black and white world view. There is right (that which conforms to my religion) and wrong (everything else). Moral relativism, on the other hand, is not grounded in any such codification. This is not to say that a relativist is not principled. The hallmark of a relativist is that he or she considers what is appropriate for themselves and what is appropriate for another. A relativist may or may not be religious, but does not hold another's decision to believe or not against them. A relativist considers what is right for them or another in the situation that faces them. A relativist engages in critical thought, and must therefore make value judgments on the efficacy of their or another's actions.
Those who would call themselves moral absolutists often engage in their own relativism. They make value judgments all the time. Take the average Far Right pro-life devotee. By "pro-life," it is taken to mean that this person is anti-abortion and anti-right to die. To complete their Right stance, they will support the war and the death penalty for criminals of certain stripes. However, a truly absolutist pro-life stance would then require opposition to the death penalty, euthanasia, and war. The late Pope John Paul II was an absolutist, for he decried all four, regardless of causal situation and practiced what he preached, even unto the manner of his death.
The following words come from a champion of moral absolutism, one who has deplored the "rise" of moral relativism:
"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion."
If then, these absolute truths do not all carry the same weight, they no longer become absolute. Note how he is also saying that it is fine for a Catholic to disagree with the Pope, when that religion teaches that the pontiff is infallible by virtue of being God's voice on Earth. Hardly an absolutist stance.
Another example, from the same champion of absolutism:
"But, the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase."
Again, this is another value judgment. Violence against a homosexual is more acceptable than violence against another (say, a Catholic) for who they are and what they choose to do.
The above quotes were written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, the supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church and spiritual leader to 1.1 billion would-be moral absolutists.
As noted before, our prototypical Right Winger will himself have embraced a relativist stance: An unborn child's life must always be protected and life should never end before nature's final grasp dictates. Conversely, criminals who perpetrate certain moral outrages do not have the same right to life, and life lost in war is a tragic but acceptable means to a greater end. All of which requires a value judgment - who is less deserving of the right to life and when.
Relativism, then, is not the act of justifying everything to fit one's needs in every situation. Moral relativism is, rather, the act of deciding for oneself how to act and respect one another, based on how the relativist would desire to be treated in the same situation. Relativism does not embrace absolutes because absolutes are different for each person or set of beliefs. This means that one set of beliefs is no better than any other, which is the crux of the problem absolutists have with relativism. If no one set of beliefs is superior to another, how then is the origin of their beliefs (their religion) the One True Source? It cannot be, making their moral system (say, Christianity) no better than any other (say, Buddhism or Islam).
The abortion debate is a perfect example of how moral relativism can be the only sane and honest choice for a thinking individual in a pluralistic society. A person can be personally pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. All this requires is for someone, like I myself am, to be personally committed to never making the decision to have an abortion. As a man, I would encourage a partner to have the child, promising to support and care for it, even if the partner does not wish to. But, because I am honest, I must enter that decision knowing full well that pregnancy carries risks to the woman, both of a physical and social nature. And since I am pro-life, I must consider the risks to that life within her. If I do not support sexual education and contraception, then I am running the risk of condemning that life to syndromes and disabilities brought on by a possible myriad of factors, including toxin exposure and even the age (very young or in her late thirties or over) of the mother. Because the lives of unwanted children can range from the merely sad to the horrific, I must also support and encourage making adoption easier for the thousands of couples who cannot conceive but wish to be parents.
This decision is right for me because I believe that life is precious, because I believe that life is all that we have. Since I do not believe in a god or the afterlife, all we have is each other, making each moment precious and important. My pro-life stance is not absolute, though. I have come to the determination that a person in irreversible pain should have the right to end that suffering, and not through some horrific method such as starvation, but by the administration of a painless and lethal drug. I oppose the death penalty, but not out of respect for life; rather, I fear giving power to Authority. I do not oppose war on principle, because I believe violence may, at times, be warranted. But, because of its power to take life, war is an option to be considered only as a last resort. While these beliefs are right for me, they are not right for everyone. I accept this because I am honest, and because I have a relativist's respect for dissenting opinion.
In all of these circumstances, I have made a value judgment. In a heterogeneous, pluralistic society, no one will be able to agree on all such judgments. My decisions, then, must be based on the fact that others will disagree. I cannot, if I am honest, place my morality above another's. I cannot, say, legislate my morality in to law, where it will be enshrined and others will be forced to conform to my wishes because I have judged their morality as unworthy.
This is why law is made by man, by consensus. The law, by definition, makes value judgments. It is relativistic. The Founding Fathers recognized that this was so, and that there will always be disagreement on the finer points of behavior and values. This is why they enshrined the ability for minorities to prevent the passage of truly egregious laws. Because not everyone shares the same values, but no one person's or group's values are better than another's.
Moral relativism is not an excuse to justify one's behavior at any given time. It means viewing one's moral choices in relation to another person's moral choices. Moral relativism is not incompatible with religion. Religion, after all, is a fine manner in which to teach morals to future generations, when approached with proper reverence and respect. Religion and absolutism, however, are a means to control and power over people. The teacher of religion, and through it, an absolutist morality, gains power as a final arbiter of right and wrong, over whether or not one will be rewarded with Paradise or punished with Hell. Moral relativism removes the need for this final arbiter, and thus removes his or her power. Relativism, then, makes all people equal by making all thought equal, and if all people are equal, then power is given and taken away by consent of all, not the few.
This is why moral relativism is so reviled by the absolutist. It removes the certainty and security that comes with being in or under Authority. It is a lonely and scary feeling to be without that comfort, until one realizes that, if we are all equal, then we are all in this together.
-Jim