Teaching Materials
Proofs
Teaching Materials
There can only be an absolute standard of morality if God exists.
"Without G-d, everything is permitted." The Brother's Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Why can't there be a morality without an infinite G-d? The answer lies in a clearer understanding of the meaning of moral relativism.
Moral relativism maintains that there is no objective standard of right and wrong independent of humanity. The creation of moral principles stems only from within a person, not as a distinct, detached reality. Each person is the source and definer of his or her own ethical code, and each has equal power and authority to define morality the way he or she sees fit.
The consequences of moral relativism are far-reaching. Right and wrong are reduced to matters of personal taste and opinion. Without a binding, objective standard of morality that is in force whether one likes it or not, a person can do whatever he feels by choosing to label any behavior he personally enjoys as "good."
Adultery, embezzlement and random acts of cruelty may not be your cup of tea -- but why should that stop someone else from taking pleasure in them?
A moral relativist can say he finds murder disgusting, but that does not make it wrong -- only distasteful. Someone else may find murder empowering and thrilling. A cannibal is entitled to his own preferences even if they are unusual and repugnant to most.
"But this killer is hurting others!" True. But in a world where everything is subjective, hurting an innocent person is merely distasteful to some, like eating chocolate syrup on lasagna. Just because we may not like it doesn't make it evil. Evil? By whose standard? No one's subjective opinion is more authoritative than another's.
INCONSISTENT VALUES
Although many people may profess to subscribe to moral relativism, it is very rare to find a true moral relativist. Just about everyone believes in some absolute truths. That absolute truth may simply be that it is wrong to hurt others. (It may even be that there are no absolutes!) The point is that just about everyone is convinced that there is some form of absolute truth, whatever that truth may be. Most people are not moral relativists.
Bertrand Russell wrote:
"I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it." (Notes on Philosophy, January 1960", Philosophy, April 1960, as quoted in The Retreat to Commitment, 2nd ed. (Preface).
Not too many of us believe that killing an innocent person is just a matter of taste. Most of us think it is an act that is intrinsically wrong, regardless of what anyone thinks. According to this view, the standard of morality is an unchangeable reality that transcends humanity, not subject to our approval.
THE INFINITE SOURCE
An absolute standard of morality can only stem from an infinite source. Why is that?
When we describe murder as being immoral, we do not mean it is wrong just for now, with the possibility of it becoming right" some time in the future. The term "absolute" means "without the ability to change." It is utterly permanent, unchangeable.
I dislike olives. I always have and I believe I always will. But that doesn't mean it's impossible for my taste to change. It is not absolute. It is theoretically changeable, even if I never change it.
What makes something absolute?
Everything in this world undergoes change. Since it exists in time, every second it gets older, perhaps weaker. After all, that's what time is - a measurement of change. In Hebrew, shanah, "year," shares the same root with shinui, "change."
If everything in the finite universe is undergoing change, the quality of absolute must have its source beyond time, in the dimension of the infinite.
Only an infinite being that exists beyond time is absolute and unchangeable.
G-d has no beginning point; He is eternal. That means G-d always existed; he is not a creation. There is nothing that can possibly exist before G-d because there is no 'before' when it comes to the infinite. 'Before' is a time-bound quality that applies only to finite entities.
For an absolute standard of morality to exist, it must stem from a realm that is eternal, beyond time, a dimension that has no beginning or end. It must stem from G-d, the infinite source of creation.
THE DEATH OF EDUCATION
Moral relativism inevitably leads to the death of education and genuine open-mindedness. The thirst for real learning comes from knowing the truth is out there, waiting to be discovered. Professor Alan Bloom writes in his book "The Closing of the American Mind":
It is the rarest of occurrences to find a youngster who has been infused by this [liberal arts] education with a longing to know all about China or the Romans or the Jews. All to the contrary. There is an indifference to such things, for relativism has extinguished the real motive of education, the search for the good life......out there in the rest of the world is a drab diversity that teaches only that values are relative, whereas here we can create all the life-styles we want. Our openness means we do not need others. Thus what is advertised as a great opening is a great closing. No longer is there a hope that there are great wise men in other places and times who can reveal the truth about life...
If everything is relative, then it makes no difference what anyone thinks. Ideas no longer matter. With no absolute standard of right and wrong or truth and falsehood, the pursuit of wisdom becomes nonsensical. What are we searching for? If no idea is more valid than another, there is no purpose in re-evaluating one's belief system and being open to exploring new concepts. There exists no higher truth that the seeker is missing.
A common argument often heard in support of relativism is that in the world at large we see a plethora of differing positions on a wide range of moral issues. Try to find one issue that all cultures agree upon!
Professor Bloom addresses this contention:
History and the study of cultures do not teach or prove that values or cultures are relative...the fact that there have been different opinions about good and bad in different times and places in no way proves that none is true or superior to others. To say that it does so prove is as absurd as to say that the diversity of points of view expressed in a college bull session proves there is no truth...the natural reaction is to try to resolve the difference, to examine the claims and reasons for each opinion.Only the shallow belief that opinions are held for no reason would prevent the undertaking of such an exciting activity.
In fact, the multitude of disagreements demonstrates exactly the opposite point. If everything is relative, what on earth are we all arguing about?
Imagine walking down the street and hearing a ferocious argument taking place inside a storefront. People are yelling at each other in rage. You approach a bystander and ask him what the commotion is all about.
"This is an ice cream parlor," he explains, "and they're fighting over which is the best flavor of ice cream."
Impossible!
Real debates and disagreements occur because deep down we believe there are right and wrong positions, not mere preferences. The underpinning of moral outrage is the conviction that your position is the correct one. Matters of taste, like music and interior design, may provoke strong emotional reactions, but not the kind that occur when we witness gross injustice. The moral indignation we feel when justice is violated is rooted in the innate belief that there exists an objective standard of right and wrong that transcends humanity, that is eternal and absolute.
 |
Rabbi Nechemia Coopersmith is the co-editor of Aish.com and director of Research and Development for Aish HaTorah in Jerusalem. He is the author of Shmooze: A Guide to Thought-Provoking Discussion on Essential Jewish Issues. |
|