In the land of orthodox moral philosophers, the scourge that threatens to plague and devastate the countryside is moral relativism. Moral absolutists like Peter Kreeft have written books debunking the claims of a relativistic outlook, and rightly so. I wonder, though, whether or not moral relativism is really the dreadful affliction it is often claimed to be. I wonder if its pestilence is so widespread.
I can think of a handful of actual defenses of moral relativism. J. L. Mackie's Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong and Joseph Fletcher's Situation Ethics come immediately to mind. Nevertheless, many of today's defenses of moral evils seem based not on a relativism but on a misguided moral absolutism.
The pro-choice position is not relativistic, but a position based on an absolute right. Terrorism is justified on grounds of religious or political creeds. Torture is defended as obligatory when millions of lives are at stake.
I don't recall knowing anyone who thought that certain actions were not always and everywhere wrong and others not always and everywhere right. What I have encountered are serious differences in moral languages and moral values. I have heard many differences of opinion on what a correct hierarchy of values should be (most don't say hierarchy of values, though, and rightly so).
Some people believe safety is more important that justice. Others believe personal freedom is of higher value than life that may be personal. Some people believe same sex marriage is a greater threat to the family than unavailable heath care. Others believe that comfort is more important than health. Yet I think each of these folks would hold that safety, justice, freedom, life, love, health care, comfort, and vitality are all good things.
In short, I think there are worse diseases of thought than moral relativism.
More on this to come.
Pages
