Moral Relativism, Universalism/absolutism and the Teaching of the Church on Catholic Morality

Fr. Damianus Abun, SVD, MBA, PhD.

Divine Word College of Vigan, Divine Word College of Laoag

International Academy of management and Economics

 

Abstract: ethical relativism is the thesis that moral judgements are relative to the culture and individual preferences. It claims that there is no universal morality as pointed out by moral universalism/absolutism.  Moral universalism is the meta-ethical position that ethics or morality applies universally, that is for all similarly situated individuals, regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality or other distinguishing features. Catholic Church teaches that moral law is universal across people in varying cultures and in fact is rooted in natural human condition. All adult persons are capable of knowing the truth. John Paul II insisted that no matter how separated someone is from God, in the depth of his heart, there always remains a yearning for absolute truth and a thirst to attain full knowledge of it.  

 

Key Words: Relativism,  Universalism,  Absolutism,  Catholic, Ethics.

Introduction

I remember a discussion four years ago in our doctoral class at the International Academy of Management and Economics, (IAME) Makati. The topic of discussion was about moral philosophy. During the discussion we got into conflict of ideas. My mind, my ideas were influenced by Moral theology, the teaching of church which I uphold. My opponents, though they were Catholics, based their opinion on moral relativism. They insist that morality is relative but I stand my ground that morality is universal and absolute. I understand their stand on ethical relativism but they do not understand my stand on universality of morality. Finally we ended the discussion with no reconciliation. They told me, “we should not bring religion into discussion on morality and I told them, we should not become relativist and become moral indifference”. That represents majority Catholics today?    

 This discussion reminds me that people, particularly Catholics, are very much influenced by popular concepts on morality which is ethical relativism. Personal freedom and independence are their moral rule; it is no longer their religion, the teaching of the Church, the teaching of Christ. Such view approves the opinion of Nietze, a supporter of relativism, that God is dead so we can rule our own life; no outside force takes control of our life. Within this crisis, the power of the church to teach morality has become a challenge and a demand. The crisis should not discourage the church but it should encourage the church to talk more about morality. It is not to control but to guide its people to the right path according to the teaching of Jesus Christ and to lead them to eternal salvation. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life” (Jhn: 14:6). Thus those who believe in Jesus Christ must have a common moral concept of what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is a wrong. Thus universal morality is required to be applied to all. Thus, it is the role of the Church to interpret moral laws for all people beyond cultural boundaries and personal preferences.   

This article will present three arguments, the ethical relativism, universalism/absolutism and the teaching of the Church on Christian morality as an answer to relativism. We should know the difference. This is to guide moral agents particularly Catholics to know the kind of morality they follow and to live in their life. After having a clear stand on what morality is to be followed, and then other morality needs to be set aside. They can choose only one kind of morality. It can not be both or we can not be moral indifference. We can not use two roads to travel at the same time; we can choose only one at a time. But before going into these three arguments, we define first what morality is.

 

Morality Defined. 

 

Morality can be classified as descriptive and normative morality. Descriptive morality refers to a code of conduct put forward by a society, group, or individual for her/his own behaviour. While normative morality refers to a code of conduct that would be put forward by all rational persons.

When morality is taken in its descriptive sense, it refers to an existing code of conduct put forward by a society, group or individual to provide a guide for behaviour of that particular group or society. Such definition leads to a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings across culture (Kurt, 1958). Since morality is put forward by a society, thus many anthropologists claim that morality, like law, applies only within a society and thus it is different from society to society or even from group to group, individual to individual. What is considered “good” or “bad” in one society may not be considered “good or bad” in other society.  Many philosophers refuse to adopt morality in its descriptive sense; however some philosophers do such as Protagoras, Baruch Spinoza, and David Hume. These philosophers are interested moral relativism and claim that it is the only kind of morality there is (Westermarck, 1960). They deny the universal morality or absolutism. 

On the other hand, when morality is taken in its normative sense, it means that there is a universal code of conduct that all rational being put forward for governing the behaviour of all rational moral agents. They deny that every society has a code of moral conduct; there is only one moral standard. Universal morality bases its claim on the natural law theory (Hauser, 2006). The natural law theories of morality claim that it is possible for any normal adult in any society to know the general kinds of actions that morality prohibits, requires, discourages, encourages and allows. They also claim that morality applies to all persons and known to all rational persons (Gert, 2004). Rational persons refer to those persons to whom morality applies. This include all normal adults with sufficient knowledge and intelligence to understand what kinds of actions of morality prohibits, requires, discourages, encourages, and allows and with sufficient volitional ability to use morality as guides for their behaviour.

Following the normative sense of morality, it becomes clearer that morality is an informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behaviour that affects others and the lessening of evil or harm as its goals. Consequently, public system guarantees that it is never irrational to act morally and since it is an informal system, it has no authoritative judges and decision procedures that provide a unique guide to action in all moral situations. When there is disagreement needed to be settled, societies use political and legal systems to supplement morality. However, it does not mean that everyone always agrees on all of their moral judgments but only that all disagreements occur within the framework of agreement. For informal public system such as morality, fully informed moral agents can, within limit, disagree in their moral judgements. But when disagreement is recognized, those who understand that morality is a public system regard how one should act as morally irresolvable, and the problem is transferred to the political or legal system (Wren, 1990).                              

Moral Relativism

Relativism is a concept that all points of view are equally valid. No one can force or impose opinion on others as correct one to be accepted. Points of views are relative. The message is that we need to respect other’s opinions. In morality, this refers to the concept that all moralities are equally good. In epistemology, it implies that all belief systems are equally true. Thus, no one should impose his beliefs on others.

            There are three kinds of relativism namely descriptive, meta-ethical and normative relativism. Descriptive relativism is a descriptive position that there exist fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences seem likely arises.  This implies that different cultures have different ways of doing things to achieve the same ends. On the other hand, meta-ethical relativism holds that truth or falsity of moral judgement is not objective or universal but relative to tradition, convictions, or practices of a group of people. Meta-ethical relativism believes that people in one society /group do not hold the same moral standards and the term “right” or “wrong”, “good or bad” do not stand to universal truth but they are societal and personal preference. While normative relativism argues that there is no universal moral standards applied to all people and to all cultures. It implies that there are no universal moral standards to judge behaviours of people as to whether they are good or bad, right or wrong. Thus, we need to tolerate the behaviours of others; even they are against my own moral values and cultural moral values. Such view leads to the idea that morality is a product of personal opinion and thus people have their own moral rule and society or cultures can not overrule individual supremacy. Nietze (1900) acknowledged that morality is not bad, it is good for the masses, however, it should be left to them. People should follow their own “inner law”, as he said “become what you are’. Nietze further argued that the death of God would eventually lead to the loss of any universal perspectives on things and along with it any coherent sense of objective truth. Instead, we would only retain our own multiple, diverse and fluid perspectives.    

            The above opinions are originated in the argument of a Greek Philosopher such as Protagoras who provides an early precursor to modern Moral Relativism. Protgoras claims that man is the measure of all things (Plato, 1591). The idea of Protgoras was somehow supported by the Greek historian, Herodotus (484-420, B.C) as cited by Isaac Littlebury (1912). Herodotus argued that each society typically regards its own belief system and way of doing things as better than others. Herodotus also pointed out that much of what is believed to be “fact’ is actually “opinion”. Such opinions had influenced David Hume (1985) in the early modern era. Hume denied that morality has any objective standards and suggested that the universe remains indifferent to our preferences and our troubles. Latest anthropologist, Edward Westermarck (1862-1939) claimed that all moral ideas are subjective judgement that reflects one’s upbringing. He pointed to the obvious difference in beliefs among societies, which he said provided evidence of the lack of any innate, intuitive power and of any universal of absolute beliefs.           

Points to Learn and to review from Relativism  

          The views of moral relativism have influenced the views of many people of modern generation on they look at others, their cultures and how they deal with each others. Relativism teaches us to understand and respect one another despite differences including moral issues. One can not judge the act of other people as immoral because there is no common moral standard as basis for such judgement. Morality is diverse. A person or society can not claim to be better than others. We can not pass judgement on practices in other cultures when we do not understand them. We have to tolerate one another even you can not understand what they are doing. Thus, if we can not judge them, neither can they judge us. So mind your own business, not others Reasonable people sometimes may differ on what is morally acceptable. Therefore morality become individual or group business, not society as a whole.

Ideas mentioned above may mislead and convince us that moral relativism is a right moral standard to be applied by individual persons. Thus, the humanists and relativists are happy to embrace moral relativism. However, we need to examine critically their argument and ponder whether moral relativism can be applied to everybody.

            Despite those positive points, we also examine their flaws. First, the source of moral relativism is subjective personal motive. The question is what their motive of preferring moral relativism is. It is their deepest desire for happiness. In their mind, moral absolutism would make them unhappy by making them feel guilty. They call absolutism as unloving and uncompassionate. They are not aware that the absolute moral law exist not to minimize but to maximize happiness and therefore it is compassionate. Relativism assumes that feelings/sentiments are the standards for judging morality. But the claim in traditional morality is the opposite: that morality is the standard for judging feelings (Kreef, 2010).

Second, another argument given by relativists is that moral relativism is empirical fact. Morality is based on the fact, experience. Fact and experience are varied. This means that different cultures and societies have very different moral values. They claim that moral rightness is a matter of obedience to cultural values. However, the absolutists/universalists deny that it is always right to obey your culture’s values. Absolutism has trans-cultural standards by which he can criticize a whole culture’s values. That is why he could be progressive and radical while the relativists can only maintain status-quo having no higher standards than his own culture. It is only the believer in the old fashion-natural moral law who could be a social radical and progressive. It is only the absolutists can condemn the 9/11 attacks as immoral act. The relativists could only say let them examine what they are doing (Kreef, 2010).

Third, related to argument on freedom, moral relativism claim that they alone guarantees freedom and moral absolutism threatens freedom. People often wonder how they can be truly free if they are not truly free to create their own values.   Experience will teach us that we are free to create some alternative rules or codes such as dress code, hair code, etc. But we are not free to create alternative moral values. We can not make murder, rape, killing right or making justice, charity, and love wrong. We can not find moral obligation to rape or to kill.      

Fourth, finally, the challenge of relativism morality is how we live together harmoniously with differing and conflicting values? What would bind us together if we do not recognize one truth? How can a leader lead a society in one direction if all members do not agree each other? There will be no peace and unity if we recognize different truth and moral values. No ideas can be met in discussions and no common agreement will be followed. Thus, consequently, United Nation will never declare human rights as universal moral values if all nations will not agree and the Catholic Church will never pronounce its morality on certain actions. That kind of life is an illusion. It denies our inner desire of harmony which can be gained through common understanding that we find in universalism or absolutism.     

Universal Morality/Absolutism

            If the relativism morality claims that morality is individual and cultural dependence but universal morality is individual and cultural independent, it applies to all rational human beings and beyond culture. Moral universalism is the meta-ethical position that ethics or morality applies universally, that is for all similarly situated individuals, regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality or other distinguishing features.  

            The application of the universal morality would be: if an action is right or wrong for others, it is also right or wrong for us” “If something is rights for you and if it is wrong for you, then it is right or wrong for me”.  Within this concept, all rational being has the same concept of what is good and bad, right and wrong and thus it is easier to judge other people’s behaviour and other culture.

            Universal morality is taken from its normative sense of morality When morality is taken from its normative sense, then it does not need to have two features that are essential to morality as defined by descriptive sense, that it be a code of conduct that is put forward by a society and that it accepted as a guide to behaviour by the members of that society. It is possible that morality in its normative sense has never been put forward by any particular society or group or individuals. It claims that it is possible for any normal adult to know what is good and bad, what is right and wrong. It further argues that morality is known to all. But how do people know whether it is right or wrong, good or bad? There is no written existing law to determine or to judge behaviour but it comes from reason. Each individual possesses reasons, each has a conscience. Thus judging behaviour is based on natural law.

            Natural law is as strong as and binding as physical law such as gravity and energy. Natural law does not depend on our interpretation or feelings but they exist independently. Rape is wrong regardless the intention and outcome behind it. It does not matter how angry we are, it is inherently wrong. Rape can not be argued as right and wrong depend on certain circumstances or cultural aspects. The truth is that rape is wrong. The truth can not have it both ways, truth can only be one. Truth has and never will change. Our opinion is not the truth; our status does not give us the truth, truth is the truth and exist independently. Morality must be based on absolute truth, not relative truth. Relative truth will tell us that an act is relative to the context, situation, culture and the person. It comes down to two opinions. A person may judge rape as wrong or immoral but others may judge it as moral and a person can not impose a moral judgement on others. Thus, how are they going to reconcile? It is only when they admit that there is a natural law, one which is above personal opinion and beliefs, one which is unchanging, can they claim that an action morally right or wrong.

According to universalists, morals are inherent in the law of nature, the nature of humanity. They regard actions as inherently or inarguably moral or immoral. It does not need other person to tell someone that certain act is immoral or moral because from the act alone can be judged whether it is immoral or moral and all adult rational moral agent know whether it is moral or immoral. Moral universalists might be, for example, judge slavery, death penalty or rape to be absolutely and inarguably immoral regardless of the beliefs and goals of a culture that engage in this practices. Thus, an action can be judged either good or bad, right or wrong, it can not be both ways, regardless of the circumstances in which they occur.

 

Points to Learn and to Review from Universalism/Absolutism

Universalism morality assures us of certainty, security and protection. We are not living under the shadow of clouds. What we think, it is right, good or bad, then we can be assure that the same opinion is upheld everywhere. There is only one truth. The position of one or a group embodies that truth. Within these moral standards, all persons, society beyond boundaries of culture can be one and judge actions against humanity as immoral. Thus, all people across culture can condemn the act of Hitler as a crime against humanity. Such act can not be considered moral in one place and immoral in other place, but the world had condemned it as crime against humanity, no mater the reason behind it.      There is always common agreement when it comes to issues on morality. We can use the slogan like: “everything for everyone” and nothing for our self”, “what we defend, we defend for everyone”, “your struggle is our struggle” under universal morality.  Consequently, society can live harmoniously without conflicting moral values. No society is considered better than the others in term of moral values.

However, it has been always criticized that universalism morality is not giving moral agents a freedom to exercise moral judgement. It disregards the cultural values that have been existing long time. Some have argued that without free will, the universe is deterministic and therefore morally uninteresting. Thus, if all moral choices and moral behaviour are determined by outside forces, there can be no need for any person to ponder morality (LaFollette, 1991).   The main question is that how we come to know what absolute morals are. The authorities who are quoted as source of absolute morality are all subject to human interpretations. And for them, for moral to be truly absolute, they would have to have a universally unquestioned source, interpretation and authority. Thus, the critics say, there is no conceivable source of such morals; there will never be universal agreement on what those morals are. However, Catholic Church has the answer. It has the authority to pronounce and interpret moral issues affecting human life through its magisterium.       

 

Veritatis Splendor: An Answer to Moral Relativism and Catholic Morality

Personal freedom has become the rule of life today. People are becoming independent and try to see everything from their own perspective, not according to the common perspective. No common moral standards being followed. Gone are the days when the old folks were so strict in educating their children to follow what is right and avoid what is wrong, do what is good and avoid what is bad. In those days, people were clear with their values and lived accordingly. They were guided only by one truth. Time has passed and now people become relative, and even becoming morally indifferent. Everything is relative, no absolute truth. Truth is not only one but many, according to personal preferences, cultural values and situation in which an act occurs. People define an act whether it is moral or immoral not on common moral standard but based on their own personal preferences and cultural perspective. This kind of perspective has influenced the life of Catholic post war in Europe. The European replaced the absolute moral values with moral relativism.

Pope Benedict XVI pointed out that  after about 1960, Europeans massively abandoned many traditional norms rooted in Christianity and have replaced them with continuously evolving relative moral rules. People play with their own rules according to their own perception. What they think is good for them, it is their moral rule. In their view, sexual activity is separated from procreation, which led to a decline in the importance of the families and to de population. Currently the population vacuum in Europe is filled by immigrants, by Muslims from Islamic countries who attempt to establish absolute value which stands at odds with moral relativism. What had happened in Europe long time ago, now is being practiced by many all over the world including Asians particularly Filipinos. The situation causes concern for the Catholic Church which pushes Catholic Church to respond. And the most authoritative response to moral relativism from Roman Catholic perspective can be found in Veritatis Splendor or the Splendor of Truth. (John Paul II, 1993).

The duty of the magisterium to answer moral question was emphasized by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical letter, Humane Vitae. Pope Paul VI (1969) emphasized that no member of the faithful could deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable that Jesus Christ when He communicated His Divine power to Peter and other apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments and constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral, not only law of the gospel but also natural moral law. For natural law, too, declares the will of God and its faithful observance are necessary for men’s eternal salvation. Thus, it is within the role of the Church, John Paul II wrote his Veritatis Splendor.             

The Encyclical  answers the questions around man’s ability to discern good, the existence of evil, the role of human freedom, human conscience, mortal sin and the role of the magisterium of the Catholic Church. In response to the claim of relativism morality that there is no universal moral truth, Pope John Paul II argued that moral truth is knowable to all persons. The moral law is universal across people in varying cultures and in fact is rooted in human condition. John Paul II insisted that no matter how separated someone is from God, in the depth of his heart, there always remains a yearning for absolute truth and a thirst to attain full knowledge of it. He continues to say that the splendor of truth “shines deep within the human spirit”. 

John Paul II argued that to ask about the “good” simply means to turn toward God, the fullness of goodness. He emphasized that the magisterium of the Catholic Church has authority to pronounce definitely on moral questions. Even more, John Paul taught that the Church is Christ’s particular response to help answer everyone questions of what is right and what is wrong. Consequently, what is pronounced “good”, evil, by the Church, that is moral absolute for all Catholic and that is binding to all the follower of Christ? One catholic can not proclaim his own version of the “good” and the “evil”. Catholics have only one truth.

Against the criticism of humanists and relativist group that the Catholic Church is deterministic and does not allow human freedom to exercise moral judgment, John Paul reiterated that there is no true conflict between human freedom and God’s law. He pointed out that the true end of human freedom is growth as a mature person into how each is created by God. God’s law governing human behaviour is not opposed to human freedom but rather it protects and promotes that freedom. Such idea lead us to conclusion that exercising human freedom is to lead us to perfection as God is perfect. So long freedom is for human perfection is moral. However, Pope John Paul II cautions us that freedom is not absolute. Merely deciding for oneself that one may do something is not all true substitutes for determining whether something is good or bad.

John Paul II, welcomes the role of human reason in discovering and applying the natural law, however, he reminds us that God still remains the true author of moral law. Human reason will not supersede the elements of the moral law that are of divine origin and that would be the death of freedom if reasons overtake divine law.  In relation to human act, the encyclical argues that certain acts are intrinsically evil. This means that certain acts are always wrong and that there are never circumstances in which they must permitted if done knowingly and intentionally. The ends do not justify the means. There are certain acts so destructive to the human person that there are no extenuating circumstances that would allow them. John Paul based his opinion on the teaching of Pope Paul VI in the encyclical Humanae Vitae concerning contraception that there are no circumstances in which the practice is elicit.

 

Conclusion

       The different theories of morality are caused by different perception of morality. Such theories have caused division in human society and so we have moral relativists who claim that morality is relative to the person, situation, culture and moral universalists /absolutists who claim that there is a common or universal moral standards for everybody and culture. Moral values are beyond the boundary of culture and individual preferences. What is moral in one society, the same is applied to all rational moral agents everywhere.   

The effect of these moral perceptions upon the life of people is great. It influences the moral behaviour of each individual. Thus, we have problems of double moral standards in society and conflict of moralities. People have no idea of what kind of morality they have to follow, either moral relativism or absolutism. Amid such situation, there is a need to have an authority to interpret morality and impose it to everybody. The Catholic Church has answered to such problem through its Veritatis Splendor or the Splendor of Truth. It is answer to moral relativism and confirmation of moral universalism or absolutism. Veritatis Splendor emphasizes that moral truth is knowable to all rational person, it is universal to all people in varying cultures and that there is no true conflict between human freedom and God’s law. Human freedom must lead the person to perfection as God is perfect. And that God is still the author of moral law and God’s law are beyond culture or universal. If the motive of moral relativism is their deepest desire for happiness, thus the motive of Christian morality is their deepest desire for ultimate happiness, eternal salvation.

Finally our life should not be guided only by our feelings and pure reason but beyond that it should be guided by God’s law. The fulfilment of God’s law is in Jesus Christ, as our way, truth and the life. Living the life of Jesus Christ in our life is a way of living moral life and living moral life will lead us to eternal salvation, ultimate happiness, not temporary happiness as claimed by relative morality.  

 References:

 

Baier, Kurt. 1958. The Moral Point of View. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Gert, Bernard. 2007. Common Morality: Deciding What To Do, New York: Oxford University Press

Hauser, Marc. 2006. Moral Mind: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. HapperCollins: New York.

Hume, David. 1985. A Treatise of Human Nature. London: Penguin.

Isaac Littlebury. 1912. THE Story of Herodotus, Vol.I, Third Edition. University of Michigan: USA

Kreef, Peter. 2010. A Refutation on Moral Relativism. http://www.peterkreef.com

LaFollette, Hugh. 1991. The Truth of Ethical Relativism: Journal of Social Philosophy: New York University.

Nietze, Frederich, Wilhem. 1900. Beyond Good and Evil. Project Gutenberg. http://informations.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/etex03/bygdv10.htm

Paul, John, II Pope. 1993. Veritatis Splendor. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

Paul VI, Pope. 1969. Humanae Vitae. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Plato. 1591. Protagoras. Eris Etext Project (translated by Benjamin Jowett). http://informations.com/etexts/philosophy//400BC-301 BC/Plato-Protagoras.      

Westermarc, Edward. 1960. Ethical relativity. Paterson, N.J: Littlefield, Adams.

Wren, T.E., editor. 1990. The Moral Domain: Essays on the On Going Discussion between Philosophy and the Social Sciences. MIT Press.