“Moral Relativism or Absolute Truth,” by Andrew J. Schatkin - Vigyaa
Close

Delete Collection?

Are you sure you want to delete this collection permanently?

Close

Delete Collection?

Are you sure you want to delete this collection permanently?

Everyone has a Story to Tell and an Experience to Share!

Let’s Start Writing
c21aa0e7-1d48-4653-927c-beb871df6b4f

89 views

“Moral Relativism or Absolute Truth,” by Andrew J. Schatkin

Moral relativism, so called, has gained in the United States and many Western nations and societies, currency, if not widespread acceptance. The idea behind moral relativism is that there are no set or absolute moral or ethical rules and, as a result, it follows there is no absolute truth or truths. Moral choice is apprehended not as an absolute, but, as an individual choice, from person to person, and from age to age.

Thus, for example, adultery, once codified as a crime, has subsequently come to carry nothing more than a severe societal stigma. Adultery has now gained a degree of tolerance, if not outright acceptance. Casual sexual liaisons, also, conducted outside of the marriage bond, once stigmatized, have gained widespread societal acceptance. Consensual homosexual relations, once known as consensual sodomy, also in the past regarded and codified as illegal have, as well, gained toleration.

At this point in time in most Western societies, we do not tolerate, and have

stopped short of tolerating and accepting, incest or adult/child sex, but appear to be moving toward total acceptance of same-sex or homosexual marriage.

Moral relativism as an idea, implies if not states that ''you can do what you want" and gain toleration, if not approval, as long as you harm no one outright, and break no laws.

Absolute truth posits there are fixed ethical and moral norms, the deviation from which constitutes some sort of wrongdoing or moral error, which should not be tolerated or accepted and which deserve to be stigmatized, if not made illegal and punished.

Moral relativism has its roots in a number of misleading and erroneous thought sources. The moral relativist says that as long as what you do in some sense makes you feel good and does not constitute a bother or irritation to anyone in your vicinity, it is seen as ok. This idea has its source in the media, where television, computers, and, of course, the Internet present deviate and illicit sexual behavior as fine and implicitly, if not explicitly, encourage it. A glance at Internet chat rooms and personal advertisements shows this to be true, as well as the widespread dissemination of pornographic material at all newsstands and places we can buy things.

The media, as a source of moral and ethical truth is, charitably put, faintly if not actually, ridiculous, since the promotion of these purported lifestyles and images has its source in the desire of its purveyors to obtain for themselves wealth and financial gain. This desire to make money, as a source of these ideas, constitutes a kind of corruption with the result that what the media presents as the image and desideratum of what we as men and women should do and be, is nothing more than an outright bald-faced lie, emanating from the desire for personal enrichment on the part of its creators and purveyors.

The second source of error in the concept and principle of oral relativism is a misinterpretation, or rather misapprehension, of what is meant by democracy. In a democracy, there is a belief that all men's and women's opinions have equal value and validity in the free and open market place of ideas that constitutes a free society. In sum, we are led to believe that since everyone has an equal vote that therefore what they may happen to say constitutes some sort of truth. This is a misconstruction and misinterpretation, I think, of democracy. What everyone happens to say does not have equal intellectual validity or truth, and should not, therefore, be given equal credence. The idea that this should be so stems from the mistaken idea that all men and women are actually equal in their talents, intelligence, and ability.

A democracy is nothing more than a system of political equality, giving all its citizens an equal voice in the electoral process and voting franchise. Rich and poor, intellectual and worker, disabled and healthy, are all given an equal role in the governing process, insofar as they all have the same vote.

Let me add that democracy is the best of all systems, since it distributes power among all its citizens, with the result that any tendency on the part of one or more individuals to obtaining absolute power is checked and limited. Democracy, however, does not mean that all of us are equal. I may be a good lawyer, but I will never be a professional tennis player, a concert pianist, or even a rock star.

It follows from this that not all opinions and ideas should be given the same

toleration and given the same sort of respect. Thus, this misinterpretation of democracy, which is nothing more than a political system, leads to the mistaken view that morality is solely an individual matter and has no reference to any form of absolute truth.

The third source of the error of moral relativism is what has come to be called "political correctness." We, all of us, want to fit in and not publicly oppose what I hesitate, but must call, the current propaganda and jargon that is constantly and continuously inflicted on us all. We fall in with whatever, as it were, is in the air. All of us know that greed and the worship of material goods and money as a final end is not only wrong, but absurd.

Political correctness forces us publicly to say otherwise. What then can we say? Is it better to apprehend truth on the basis of what each person regards as personally appropriate for their particular situation or put it another way, what the particular age or Zeitgeist recommends at any particular time.

I admit that so-called fixed moral rules can and do lead to great human suffering if they are not carefully examined from age to age and from generation to generation.

Since human beings and human nature are in some sense corrupt, that corruption will operate in the name of a fixed morality to bring about and create wrong and moral errors, such as slavery, the oppression of women, or any other form of injustice. Corrupt human beings and their leaders will use morality and moral rules for whatever corrupt political purpose they may have, whether to gain power for themselves over less powerful and unfavored groups, or simply to get more money.

The sources of moral relativism—the media, greed, and misleading political thinking—mean that, as an idea, it has little or no value. Political correctness, the forces of greed, and corrupt political leadership say to us that adultery and casual sexual liaisons are perfectly fine. We all know within our hearts and spirits that they are not. The media says through bombarding us with pornographic images that that is ok. We all know within our hearts it is not. We all know that the single­ minded desire for material goods and wealth as a value system is totally bereft of any intellectual validity. We are told by our corporate and political leaders that this should be our lodestar.

In short, we, within our deepest levels of consciousness as human beings, do believe that there are absolute moral norms and absolute truth. We call this natural law, for want of a better word. We all agree that we should be nice to the people around us. Christianity tells us to love our neighbor. In some sense, there is a universal thought system of moral law that informs and permeates our entire society. I am not convinced that what is purveyed by the media, what is in the air, or what is mistaken as tolerance constitutes any sort of truth. Some things are true, and others are not. I am not prepared to have the source of my thinking and life principles, molded by whatever happens to be faddish or fashionable, imposed on me and all of us for reasons of personal financial gain on the part of its makers, who inflict these corrupt ideas on us, solely for the purpose of attaining power. 

Educational and Business Consultant, Writer, Speaker, and Teacher. He is the author of five book chapter in the areas of Evidence, Criminal Law, and Family Law.

Categories

Others Society


Related Articles

Hello Mr Businessperson! What if I told you that I could reduce your sick leave by 20%? If we worked really hard maybe even 45% or even 55%?

15.4 million days were lost in the UK during 2017 to 2018 due to mental health alone. That makes up 57% of all work sick leave. Almost half (44%) of those 15.4 million days were due to workload. This data is compiled yearly by the UK’s Health and Safety Executive but is isn’t unique to the UK.

For decades the World Health Organisation has been monitoring death rates and the global trend is terrifying. Suicide is the biggest killer of men from their teenage formative years right into their 50s. Whilst the UK male suicide rate was at its lowest in 2017 (since 1981 when the UK’s Office for National Statistics started) it is still the biggest killer of men from their teens to the time they should get their bus pass. In 2017, 5,821 people ended their own lives. 4,382 (75.3%) of those were male.

The worst part? This isn’t news. It has been this way for decades. While we have all be shocked into action and the fight against medical issues like AIDS, TB and cancer, men have been killing themselves rather than live in a devolved country. A large proportion of this has a relation to work and as we discovered above, 44% is workload itself.

Since the recession of 2009, budgets in all businesses have been tightened. Sometimes processes simplified or corners cut. There are occasions where this isn’t a bad thing but sometimes removing unique services and products alienates your customers and your own staff. Making people redundant and then being surprise there is not enough people to handle your sales or service calls is embarrassing, farcical, damaging and, worryingly, not uncommon. Your customers big and small no longer regard you as a market leader – suddenly your higher prices are no longer ‘worth it’ because your service is now no better than the cheaper competitor. They think they have achieved the savings the business needs but it’s self-destructive and I’ve seen it first hand.

The businesses that have flourished in the last ten years are the ones who took a small pair of pruning shears to the ‘bush’ of their processes, services and staff and not the businesses who took a machete.

Businesses who support their staff see better sales and reliability. Happy staff do more for the business, in and out of work.

Mind, a leading mental health charity in the UK, run their own Workplace Index. Their report from 2017 showed that only 54% of staff, in an array of industries, felt their manager support their wellbeing and mental health.

Simple solutions such as offering occasional one-2-ones help focus your staff and support them. It also allows managements to see where the real issues are – the issues that actually affect your customers and your profits. Mind encourage companies to sign up to their pledge and join the battle. Big industry leaders such as Heineken and JaguarLandRover have been on board for years. Suicide is preventable. A short conversation, an occasional check-in with someone who may be struggling to cope can go a long way, and might even help save a life.

In 2015, I suffered workplace discrimination. I tried to end my own life. It has taken years to recover. It was embarrassing for the management and the brand involved as well as costly due to the legal action that followed. If you want talented staff doing their best and the sales and profits that match, you have to offer the right service to your staff. The alternative is either the staff burnout, which in my example is costly, or the staff go to your competitors.

It’s finally business savvy to care about the wellbeing of your staff.



Reference Image
Close