Relativism: The death of standards
Nobody truly has ironclad or inflexible standards for living an honorable life. We all want a little wiggle room, particularly when it comes to ethics or morality.
People often say they intuitively have a bright line position on certain moral issues. (“I know in my heart this is right.”) But then again if a bright line is intuitive or a gut feeling, it can’t by definition be a bright line – a moral absolute – otherwise it would be etched in stone, not intuitive. Take this example: It is absolutely wrong to lie, but is truth an absolute value? How can it be? We all tell well-intentioned white lies.
Moral relativism is the current flavor of choice, which undoubtedly has been accelerated in recent decades by the technology of the information age. We see and hear everything in real time – including the customs of the many culturally diverse groups in an ever-shrinking globe. So now we can measure our own standards of morality against what everyone else is doing. You have to wonder if our kids even stand a chance.
There are some surviving absolute values; e.g., murder is wrong. But the notion that right or wrong is not an absolute value has gained considerable acceptance starting with the counterculture years of the 1960s. In fact, a 2002 Zogby international poll of college seniors commissioned by the National Association of Scholars disclosed that 73 percent of the students said they were taught by their professors that uniform standards of right or wrong do not exist; that it all depends upon individual values and cultural diversity. What then were the formulation years for these professors? (The average age for a U.S. college professor is 55.)
Perhaps the most nagging debate of recent decades is the issue of same-sex marriage. Many of us have gay or lesbian friends or relatives either in or out of the closet. The issue is not as black or white as it may seem. It is easier to debate abortion. First of all, the woman having the abortion never wanted to get pregnant in the first place. Secondly, an overwhelming number of people sense that abortion at some stage of the pregnancy means a human life is being destroyed.
In a recently decided San Francisco case, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that gays and lesbians have the constitutional right to marry partners of their choice. He ruled that under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, same-sex partners have a “fundamental” constitutional right to marry and any restriction “creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.” I personally find it interesting that both our neighbors – Canada and now Mexico – recognize same-sex marriages and that at least one Supreme Court justice looks to international law for persuasive guidance.
John Stuart Mill’s conception of liberty was based on the freedom of the individual as opposed to state control. In liberty he observed, “The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it.” So why not same-sex marriage?
Here is where it gets very murky. Marriage is after all, a civil as well as a religious institution. Staying with the civil aspect of the institution, it would seem inevitable that the same legal arguments will be made for polygamous or other forms of civil marriage contracts, such as polyarmory. Group marriage has many proponents, so some argue for the abolition of traditional marriage. Why not?
Arguably, common-law marriage, which was universal at one time or the other, is simply a convenient cohabitation arrangement by consenting couples. It was the law in Florida until abolished by the legislature in 1967. (And in Sweden, feminists have proposed the elimination of marriage in favor of a cohabitation law regardless of the number of partners or gender.)
Polygamy is now illegal in all states, but was a Mormon practice until 1890 and still is with breakaway groups. Furthermore, Canada’s Saskatchewan province has approved of polygamy; and a case is pending before the Supreme Court in British Columbia, which will decide whether the federal law banning polygamy violates Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And many Muslim societies and others practice polygamy. It has been a common practice since biblical times, although not with European aristocracy and is quite common in the global community.
Not so with same-sex marriage, which is more of a Johnnie-come-lately. Although present in Roman times, the practice was outlawed by early Christian emperors. (Nevertheless, there has been a long history of same-sex relationships involving many famous historical figures.) The practice didn’t get a whole lot of attention in the U.S. until recent decades.
Once our courts cross the Rubicon validating same-sex marriage, it is difficult to imagine marriage and the family surviving as we now know it because constitutionally protected polygamy and polyamory will not be far behind. Why? Because critical thinkers know that Congress and the judiciary have always been victims of the law of unintended consequences. Over time, the envelope gets nudged just a little more by progressive legislators and jurists until the next outcome becomes inevitable.
To that end, one has to have concern for the stability of society and the well-being of children in such arrangements. Yet I am sure well-intentioned gays and lesbians will disagree.
Historian and philosopher Will Durant, a product of the early 20th century, wrote “The Lessons of History” in 1968, which was a synopsis of his and his wife’s monumental series, “The Story of Civilization.” Reflecting upon the dilemma of preceding generations, he observed, “Caught in the relaxing interval between one moral code and the next, an unmoored generation surrenders itself to luxury, corruption, and a restless disorder of family and morals.”
Sounds pretty gloomy, but this was the judgment of a historian intimately familiar with world civilizations. What is so depressing is that it could have been written today. It seems as if “the story of civilization” has been, and will always be, a journey from “one moral code” to another.
Unintended consequences?
John Reiniers, a regular columnist for Hernando Today, lives in Spring Hill.
