“There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death.”
Proverbs 14:12, (NIV)
“Controversial: adj. con·tro·ver·sial/ˌkäntrəˈvərSHəl/ Giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement. syn. Debatable, contentious.” Having established the definition, I think it is now acceptable to most to label the writings of Ruth Benedict on relative morality as controversial. (As is almost anything said by Barak Obama, or on limited atonement, or global warming, or “aggressive interrogation,” etcetera, etcetera. Enough said.)
This being established, Benedict makes some very astute observations about culture and normality in her essay “Morality is Relative.” In striving to grasp a more comprehensive understanding of this work, I attempted to summarize the key points of this essay without regard to my personal beliefs. They are as follows:
· “Normal” is nothing more than what is acceptable to the society or culture in which one dwells. And, vice versa, “Abnormal” is defined by what the surrounding culture finds to be distasteful or unacceptable.
· “Every society, beginning with some slight inclination in one direction or another, carries its preference farther and farther, integrating itself more and more completely upon its chosen basis and discarding those types of behavior that are uncongenial.”
· What may be acceptable or even expected in one culture might not be so in another, but the imposition of the beliefs of one culture upon another does not make either “right.”
· “No one culture can possibly utilize in its more the whole potential range of human behavior.” Furthermore, no one culture is more “right” than another, except mayhaps in their own eyes.
· Morality is actively defined and made up by the beliefs and actions of the culture, and as is different between the cultures as the normalcies each holds to be true.
· “The vast majority of individuals in any group are shaped to the fashion of that culture.” In other words, we are putty in the hands of the culture we have shaped for ourselves. To carry this thought further, the culture will continue to change – growing stronger as the material it consists of grows stronger – thereby causing stronger changes in its occupants.
· Morality is nothing more than actions and habits that are approved by the society in which they occur, and is only applicable to the society it occurs in.
Benedict’s work shows marks of great thought, intelligence and depth, but also contains errors born out of an ignorance of true spiritual things. Her theory that “what is normal is moral” is an interesting one, and certainly logical from an atheistic point of view – this is to say that once God is “taken from the mix,” moral relativism is all that is left to us. For without God, we have no reliable definition of what is right and wrong, only our own inner “compass” to guide us.
Is morality relative? No. Why? Quite simply because God is absolute, and God alone is the definition of all that is truly “good.” Left to ourselves, to determine what is “good” by the culture’s standards, we progress in a downward spiral (which, true, may not be viewed as a bad thing) that leads us further into what only results in depression, unhappiness and a God-hole that aches to be filled. I can attest to all three of these symptoms from personal testimony and experience.
But there are problems with her theories of moral relativity outside of religion as well. The reasoning can easily become defective as one set of opinions battles against another, only to become yet another case of “might makes right” in the end. Suppose one man’s values say that abusing children is completely acceptable, perhaps even worth of praise. What do we do with that man? He is condemned, locked away, a social outcast at the very least! We force him to live by our values – who stands right here?
She theorizes that morals differ from people group to people group with the culture, thereby concluding that morals must be relative. But what truly differs from culture to culture are the values found within that people group. What they value, what they cherish in their heart determines how they live. Adolph Hitler and his Nazis believed devoutly that Jews had no right to live and only the Aryan race should have power or even the right to life. Where are they now? America, among other nations, stepped in and forcibly put a stop to their actions. We forced our morals on them, saving countless lives in the process. Those lives did not matter to the Nazis, their values were elsewhere. According to their morality, they were in the right. Where now does Benedict’s theory fit in? The Jews believed themselves to have a right to live, the Nazis disagreed and acted upon their beliefs, whereupon the Americans forcibly contended against the cultural beliefs of the Germans. Who was truly right?
These aren’t the easiest arguments to nail down, and they do have their flaws. Without a belief if the One God, there is no absolute way to prove relative morality to be false.* The Bible is the key to unlocking this falsehood, and the window through which we need to see our world.
I have to wonder if Solomon struggled with the issues behind the topic of relativity before shouting in despair, “Meaningless! Meaningless! Everything is meaningless!” I was tempted to do just that as I attempted to reason with the philosophy of moral relativism outside the Word of God. In an attempt to better understand the topic, I went to a power higher than me and lower than God: my dad. I asked him if morality was relative, and I think his quipped answer is a lighthearted note to leave this discussion on. “No, honey,” he said. “And some of your relatives aren’t very moral.”
No comments:
Post a Comment