ethical relativism

"but that is just an excuse for ethical relativism!"

i have heard that phrase, and variations there of, a million times since i first became interested in philosophy. it never ceases to amaze me.

first of all, the word "excuse." the phrase is unceasingly used in response to something that does indeed suggest the relativity of morals. why it is an excuse is not at all clear. it seems like saying that the fact that my children need an education, is just an excuse to send them to school. come again? it isn't an excuse, it is a reason, and a valid one at that. it is also reality. just a thought, but if these people are hungry, isn't that just an excuse to eat?

then there is the issue of ethical relativism. there is a particular section of the population that sees this an evil, a wrong, a terrible misleading leftist communist plot. this is the kind of thing that will rot your teeth, give you bad posture, make you blind if you stay up thinking about it, and make the country lose the war. it will infest your being and rot your soul and send you to hell. their hell, not mine. i don't have a hell, so i guess it is all relative.

lets look at that a second. there are two contrasting views at work here. one view is that there is a universal set of values, and collection of ethics that nobody can deny, that we can discover, the way that we discover a new planet, or a great place to eat, that is to say you just look around, and if you look hard enough, there they are! the overwhelming majority of people who buy into this way of thinking are religious. and by some coincidence, their particular invisible man has already told his believers the truth! in fact, generally, the rules are created by their god. these are the people that argue that if people didn't believe in god, there would be no morals.

the second view is that people make up rules, and that they always have. plain and simple.

so how is your history? how is your knowledge of religion? if you look back on the history of religion, and how it relates to morals, there is one thing you can find, with very little effort. they change.

oh many people claim that ethical values are laid out by a god or gods, but if so, it would seem these gods are indecisive. the rules keep changing. why is that? is it because the already existing and unchanging rules of conduct that define a moral person can change? why no they can't (we are told) can they? so what happens? perhaps we misunderstood, and the new rules are the real rules? reflects poorly on god, doesn't it? can't even get his own rules right?

so what is really happening? simple, people change the rules, and then they change god to allow their new system to have authority. how convenient.

but ethical relativism is bad and we need excuses for it.

got that?

good.

the real issue, to me at least, is simply people who are cowards. some people have the conviction of themselves, rather than their beliefs.

i know that i am not always right. i know that i am not always correct. i know that i am as able to be misled, confused, bewildered, and lost as anyone. but i also know that if i keep working at it, i can arrive at the answer. the key is to keep looking at the assumptions, and to never accept an answer as final (sorry "who wants to be a millionaire fans) no matter how good it may seem at any given time.

but other people don't have the courage to believe in themselves. no, it is far too easy to put their belief in a father figure, and let the work, the thinking, and the responsibility be someone else's. it is simply a matter of cowardly people with lazy attitudes. that simple.

now the danger is that people will assume that all people who have religious beliefs are lazy cowards. ah but that is not what said. look again.

Galileo said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

Jefferson said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

religion is not the determining factor. failing to think about it is. blind acceptance is not belief, it is not faith, it is not intelligent, and most of all, it is not right.