We Ignore Absolute Truth at Our Own Peril.

I wonder if the old battle lines defined as the political left and right are becoming less and less relevant. Many of today’s political issues do not fit neatly into these categories. One might argue they never really did. The traditional view of the right vs. left was so heavily influenced by the Cold War that it tended to drown out many of the other issues. When both sides feel that their view is the correct view and the consequence of being wrong is total nuclear annihilation, it tends to dwarf many of the other issues.

Now that the cold war is over, both parties have drifted, arguably towards the center. The Democrats now claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility and the Republicans passed the largest social program, prescription drug benefit, since the New Deal. Since the end of the cold war, party identification seems to have lessened and the majority of Americans seem to swap their allegiance to the two parties with each election.

I say all of this because I think there is a new fault line that lies below the surface of the traditional right vs. left arguments. It is not Democrat vs. Republican or liberal vs. conservative. Both parties ignore this fault line at their own peril. I think the fault line is becoming moral relativism vs. absolute truth. I think this fault line is the foundation which is beginning to take shape and form the modern political philosophies.

Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it." Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Think about that for a moment. A relativist is comfortable saying that there is no universal standard for truth. That very statement is a universal standard for truth. The very basis for moral relativism is a contradiction.

The absolute truth constituency believes there are universal standards for truth. Our traditional Judeo-Christian heritage is loaded with them. This group is comfortable that there are certain ideals or absolute truths. They realize no one can live up to them but they are and should remain the plumb line for a society. For the most part, the real issue is that relativists do not disagree with the truth expressed in this heritage; they just don’t want to be governed by them. I would ask; if not these ancient morals, whose – yours, mine, Hitler’s?

If truths are merely the opinions of an individual or even an entire culture, who are we to condemn the Nazi extermination of millions of Jews. Hitler believed it. The Germans (culture) at that time accepted it. It must be true. Of course that is ridiculous. The holocaust was wrong on an unprecedented scale. Just because a large group of people have an opinion does not make it right. Opinions can be flat out wrong.

C.S. Lewis points to the nature of most arguments as a clue to what we truly believe. Inherent in those arguments is a concept of fairness, as in "how would you like it if someone did that to you?" When we make that statement, we are appealing "to some kind of standard of behavior [we] expect" the other person to know about. Where do you think that standard originates?

It seems clear that moral relativism is steadily becoming the primary moral philosophy of modern society, a culture that was previously governed by a "Judeo-Christian" view of morality. Evidence of this would be the near 50-50% societal split on gay marriage. This concept was unheard of just a few decades ago. While Judeo-Christian standards continue to be the foundation for civil law, more and more people hold to the concept that right or wrong are not absolutes, but can be and in fact must be determined by each individual. Morals and ethics can be altered from one situation, person, or circumstance to the next. To follow this line of reasoning is to embrace anarchy.

Our founding fathers understood the dangers of moral relativism. In his September 19, 1796 Farewell Address to the nation, George Washington stated: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars." Washington knew that religion was the source of our morality. He knew that morality is not dependent on the government, but the government is dependent on our morality. Religion is the source of absolute truth which in turn is the source of our morality. We ignore this absolute truth at our own peril.