This is the third in a series of commentaries focusing on the question of culture change and how to bring about change for the better.
In our first Commentary in this Series, we introduced the idea of the Overton Window as a means of identifying the shift in social norms and values that makes policy choices move from being “unthinkable” to “acceptable”. One of the biggest drivers in that shift has been the idea of moral relativism.
Moral relativism is simply the idea that there is no objective universal right or wrong: you have your ideas, I have mine—who’s to say who’s right or wrong? Who am I to judge?
In the absence of an objective moral order, questions that were once decided in terms of their moral significance are easily relegated to the “that’s a personal choice” category of mere subjective judgement, regardless of the harm done to individuals or society. If a behaviour or idea is no longer regarded as “immoral” then the “unthinkable” quickly degenerates into the acceptable.
The Big Lie
To deny the existence of an objective universal moral order is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, lie yet advanced to destroy both individuals and Western Civilization. It is just not a question of knowing right from wrong, it is also a question of discerning good from evil. As C. S. Lewis cogently argues in the opening of Mere Christianity, and more fully in The Abolition of Man, everyone makes an appeal to a universal standard when trying to justify, or excuse, their behaviour. Unless one is a materialist, we aren’t arguing about whether there is an objective standard, rather we are arguing about what that objective standard is.
Moral relativism extends beyond the sphere of personal choices, it also includes the proposition that one culture is no better than another and that one should not use the norms and values of one culture to evaluate the norms and values of another. Cultural relativism as just as odious and corrupting as moral relativism. Don’t kid yourself or be fooled by the games academics and politicians play with respect to such issues. The plain fact is that a culture that accepts, facilitates and promotes, for example, lies, torture, slavery or human sacrifice is neither good nor healthy by any honest definition of those terms.
Humans as Moral Beings
Humans are moral as well as social beings; it is in our nature to make moral judgements because we are hardwired to seek the good. We make moral judgements all the time, even when we say we don’t or can’t—which are themselves moral judgements in their own ways.
Men and women are far from perfect, we are capable of great good, as well as great evil. All humans experience joy and sorrow, dreams and disappointments. The universality of our humanity is well expressed by the Roman playwright, Publius Terentius Afro, “Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto. — I am a human being, and thus nothing human is alien to me.” One of the implications of Terentius’ observation is that we are all in the same boat with respect to our potential for good and evil. We are all capable of doing certain things in certain circumstances. However, the fact is that we don’t all do the same things in the same circumstances. The fact is that we all make different choices and that is a testament to our abilities to discern right from wrong and make the better choice.
Whether we admit it or not, the Natural Law, written on the hearts of each of us, is a valuable and objective source of basic moral truth to inform our conscience to make better choices. The fact that we recognize that there is such a thing as “right” and “wrong” is fundamental; the real argument resides in being able to discern what is right from wrong, not that there is a right or wrong. Human beings choose what they perceive to be “good”, although whether it really is good will depend upon an objective assessment and moral education regarding the consequences of the choice and the purpose and meaning of life.
The moral standards derived from the Natural Law include such concepts as: magnanimity; mercy; honesty; good faith and veracity; respect for parents and the elderly; duties to children and posterity; and beneficence. When you think about it, it is no more complicated then treating others as you yourself would want to be treated—with respect, honesty and civility.
Law and Morality
Once you accept the snake oil that there is no objective universal moral order, it becomes relatively easy to descend to the next level, i.e., that law has nothing to do with morality, and that you can’t legislate morals. This is a favourite rallying cry for those who advocate for the de-criminalization of such evils as abortion, drugs, prostitution, and pornography.
It doesn’t take long, however, to realize that we do indeed “legislate morality” all the time. Just look at the Criminal Code—one is hard pressed to find an offence that is not rooted on a clear moral bedrock, such as: it is wrong to lie; cheat; steal; commit violence against another person; or kill. Moreover, the whole underlying premise of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is that human beings have inherent rights that are FUNDAMENTAL that pre-exist government and which government must respect. Similarly, federal and provincial Human Rights Codes are legal instruments to support the proposition that it is wrong to discriminate against someone based upon certain human characteristics. No, law is very much a question of morality: and while it is often a question of whose morality predominates, it is still a question of morality.
When courts reject laws that are based upon traditional Judeo-Christian values, they are not making “moral-free” judgements. Rather they are replacing those values with other values that carry their own moral underpinnings far removed from Mount Sinai and the Mount of Beatitudes.
The Necessity of Choice
To appreciate the importance of such universal values such as courage, honour, and honesty is to understand that there are times in all our lives that we must choose between right and wrong, good or evil. The more our policy choices are clothed in the rhetoric of permissiveness (tolerance) or are based upon a denial of the existence of intrinsic right and wrong, we invariably sink lower into the moral and economic morass of a doomed society.
This process was aptly described by the U.S. scholar (and later politician) Daniel Patrick Moynihan, as “defining deviancy down”. As the amount of deviancy increases in society, society adjust its standards so that conduct once thought deviant is no longer deemed so. This mirrors the Overton Window in terms of the shift in societal standards, from defining something as “unthinkable” (deviant) to “acceptable” (the new normal). We arrive at a deviant society by moral cowardness, by failing to live up to our Judeo-Christian moral values and standards. Is it any wonder then that by rejecting an objective universal moral order political elites are constantly devolving terms and concepts to suit their own conceits in order to normalize both rampant deviancy and their policy failures in the furtherance of their woke agenda?