Relativism

Relativism: a Constant Controversy The world and those who inhabit it are constantly changing and humans are constantly finding different ways to adjust to those drastic transformations. For hundreds and thousands of years society has relied on religious institutions for support and guidance; however in more recent decades, society’s involvement with religion has become increasingly more distant and, as a result, more secular, modern methods of philosophy and guidance have become apparent. Relativism, in particular, is one of the more infamous methods. The of terms relativism clearly state that no one culture or group should be judged based on their moral beliefs, and that there are no universal moral values shared among the differing cultural societies around the world. This ideology has spread like wildfire throughout Western civilizations [who focus greatly on academic studies, especially mathematics and science] and, therefore, has become recognized by the church. As more people become absorbed by the teachings of relativism, there is significantly less involvement in the already degraded church. Panic has arisen in Christian leaders and officials as a result of the current state of the once thriving institution, and many have given public speeches and published articles and books in an attempt to regain their followers. Joseph Ratzinger, also known as Pope Benedict XVI has addressed this growing dilemma in his homilies and presented various arguments rejecting the practice of relativism. There is one quote [containing these arguments] spoken by Pope Benedict which I will analyze and evaluate in this essay. This is a quote that I believe to be correct for a number of reasons, which are supported by social observations and ethical studies. Pope Benedict XVI’s argument regarding the impracticality of relativism is essentially correct because society would not be able to function under relativism and the philosophy is impracticable. Joseph Ratzinger, also known as Pope Benedict XVI, has taken a very strong and evasive stand against the philosophy of relativism. He begins his argument by addressing the effect relativism has had on the church (which is obviously the most urgent matter for the pope). Ratzinger argues that in today’s world, if someone has clear moral values and faith, especially if it is based upon a religious doctrine, then it must be considered fundamentalism. He claims that this unstable and uncertain philosophy is “...the only attitude that can cope with modern times” (Joseph Ratzinger) and that now there is no longer a sense of right and wrong. Compared to the definite moral doctrine of the church, relativism accepts any action as right, and he emphasizes this uncertainty by quoting the Ephesians. By incorporating this quote from the Ephesians into his argument, Ratzinger stresses how effortless relativists will deem an obviously amoral action to be acceptable on the grounds that there is no longer a fixed moral standard in the evolving world since morals cannot be proven. Ratzinger also includes the metaphor of dictatorship in his claim for the purpose of foretelling what will eventually become of society if this practice of relativism does not cease. He is implying that, as increasing numbers of people are being swayed by relativist arguments and are believing that there are no moral standards, all morals will eventually be abandoned and mass chaos would erupt. By using the term ‘dictatorship,’ Ratzinger is insinuating that, as relativism becomes increasingly popular, morals will not only be rejected by the majority, but socially unacceptable. In other words, even if a minority of people still follow an ethical code, they will eventually be either convinced or forced by the majority to abandon their ethical standards and follow the teachings of relativism. He then continues by stating that this indefinite relativist ‘dictatorship’ would do nothing other than satisfy “one’s ego and desires” (Joseph Ratzinger) and as a result of the lack of morals and unrestricted license to do as any one pleased, human civilization would deteriorate to a drastic degree and eventually collapse. Ratzinger presents a very pressing, cynical case; however, as skeptic as it may be, it is essentially correct in the sense that the practice of relativism will result in an extremely negative outcome when applied to society. Ratzinger’s claim against relativism must be correct because society would not be able to function if everyone it consisted of believed in relativism. Society, regardless of where in the world it may be, is very finely structured and its success depends greatly on common moral values to maintain peace within the community. If the entire population believed in and practiced relativism, the entire civilization would collapse. Relativism states that there are no universal moral beliefs and that no one culture or person should judge another based on their ethical standards; in other words, it allows everyone to do whatever they think is morally correct. By giving people the unrestricted license to do as they pleased, relativism allows crime to proliferate and prevents society from progressing. Then, as the practice of this destructive philosophy slowly escalates and becomes increasingly popular, society’s delicate infrastructure would eventually fall apart and the civilization that is known today would cease to exist. Thomas Hobbes, a great ancient philosopher and social observer, has theorized that humans are naturally wicked, selfish beings and that a common moral code is the only thing preventing modern society from falling apart completely and allowing humans to develop and progress. Based on this argument, which is accepted in many cultures familiar with the teachings of Thomas Hobbes, since relativism deems all human actions permissible and humans are naturally wicked beings concerned only with their own self-interest, one can assume that populations would abuse this license to fulfill their egotistic desires and destruction and chaos would result. Relativism is obviously impractical if society is unable to withstand its catastrophic outcomes, and, therefore, Joseph Ratzinger’s anti-relativism argument must hold truth in saying that the practice of relativism is unviable. Ratzinger’s argument against relativism, however skeptic it may be, is also correct because the social practice of relativism is impracticable.1 Stated obviously in the previous paragraph, the social practice of relativism would lead to nothing more than society’s own demise, and is therefore impractical. It is not logical for a finely structured society to adopt a practice that would only destroy itself eventually. Also, by assuming the philosophies relativism, not only would humans suffer and terminate progression, but a single society is allowing itself to be vulnerable and subjected to another, possibly more powerful community. For example, let’s say that a social of communities on the Western coast of America adopts relativism and their societies degrade to the point that the area has become dangerous and unstable. Then another more organized, united group from the Eastern coast of America invades the Western coast The Eastern community eventually conquers the unstable nation since the residents have no means of defending themselves and are without a leader to turn to for guidance or any kind of unifying force. The communities that were once in the Western territories are now subject to those who conquered them and have lost their initial right of freedom. Referring back to the anti-relativist argument, this example emphasizes how the practice of relativism eventually creates such instability among societies and cultures that the utilization of the philosophy is impracticable. Not only is it irrational for a population to engage itself in a practice which will eventually destroy itself, but it is also irrational to adopt relativism because the practice segregates a community and allows it to become vulnerable to stronger, more unified communities. In essence, relativism is an impracticable and Joseph Ratzinger is correct in denouncing it. Humans have always been looking for ‘the answer’ which will solve all the earth’s problems and bring eternal global peace, and since modern times have become increasingly more complicated and dangerous, people are becoming more desperate for this solution. People around the globe have found different ways to find these answers, mainly through religion, philosophy, and science, and, realistically, have gotten significantly closer to finding it. However, despite how logical and realistic these new theories may be, they are still proven imperfect and impracticable by those who study them (which is a good thing because an impractical philosophy would definitely be a negative idea to pursue). Relativism is one of those imperfect, impracticable philosophies. Initially, it seems to be a very noble and virtuous philosophy; never judging others based on their moral believes is a very righteous fantasy, but it is still a fantasy and can never be fully practiced. If a society believed that all actions were morally right and that there was no common ethical standard, the society would collapse completely and cease to progress. By giving everyone the license to do as they pleased, they would abuse that license and fulfill their selfish desires, regardless of the well-being of anyone else. All that were once in a well-structured, constructive community would become isolated and severely at risk, and of relativism would cause this mayhem, it is an impractical doctrine. Other than causing the complete destruction of society, relativism is an irrational practice because the philosophy is impracticable. It would obviously be illogical to obliterate a civilization that has demanded thousands of years of construction and evolution, but relativism is also impracticable because the universal practice of it would cause, not only the collapse of individual societies, but also a senseless imbalance of power among those societies. The long-term effects of relativism would cause each society to become vulnerable to another, and eventually one would be overpowered. It is idiotic to allow one’s own society to be subjected to suppression in an attempt to be tolerant of other cultures’ beliefs. Joseph Ratzinger makes a very accurate and rational argument criticizing the devastating practice of relativism. Ratzinger emphasizes how indefinite and egotistic relativism is and is essentially correct. Relativism is impractical since it condemns the fate of society and is fundamentally impracticable.