It is no secret that liberals tend to be more permissive than conservatives on decisions of morality. Part of the reason for this stems from the Left’s insistence that “right” and “wrong” are determined by each individual rather than as a function of society or the culture. On the Left many reject the conservative belief in traditional morality as being closed-minded and unsympathetic to the uniqueness of each person. I propose that the truth is exactly the opposite. It is the Left’s moral relativism that is (1) closed-minded and (2) ignores the true value of the individual.
1) Moral relativism is closed-minded.
A relativist approach to morality holds that moral truth depends largely on who you ask. According to this way of thinking, we may each hold an opinion or version of the truth, but that opinion is shaped by cultural, religious, and historical conditions, and is constantly in flux. For the Left, morality can vary from person to person depending on his or her own life experience which, of course, can change over time. There is no one moral code for everyone that remains constant. Or in more simple terms: “What’s right for you may not be right for me, and what’s wrong for you may not be wrong for me.” Morality is an individual choice.
And so, the left gets away with moral laziness. They do not have to make tough moral decisions because they can simply fall back on the relativist claim to an individualized moral code where there is no absolute “right” and “wrong,” other than what you make for yourself. Thus Leftists never need bother to explore the complexity of any moral issue. You can simply do what makes you feel good, without consideration for anything bigger than your own desires and emotions. Moral relativism is closed-minded because it completely shuts out the possibility that there is something greater than the individual and even beyond all of humanity, something that exists outside of space and time that can show us a truly moral life.
2) Moral relativism devalues the individual.
Supposedly moral relativism elevates the status of the individual by granting each person the ability to determine his or her own moral code. We are told this empowers each person and is therefore uplifting. However this does not bring more dignity to the individual, but instead devalues the human person in at least two ways. First, it isolates each person from others because cultural and social bonds deteriorate when the shared values of a society are removed. The common values we hold as a society dictate the intrinsic worth of human life and establish moral justice. Without an agreed upon moral code, no one can be certain of his or her personal rights because each individual is free to define those rights differently based on their own parameters. We are then left with a multiplicity of competing moral codes which cannot guarantee equal dignity or rights to any individual.
Secondly, and perhaps most damaging of all, moral relativism diminishes the dignity and value of each individual because relativism essentially denies the existence of God. By questioning moral truth, the Left implicitly questions the source of that Truth, which is to say the Left is for all practical purposes atheistic (or at the very least agnostic). According to the relativist stance, human rights and dignity are granted by group consensus which relies on the changing whim of the populace. This runs entirely contrary to our founding principles which state that our rights are endowed to us by our Creator and in this way are unalienable. By acknowledging a creative source to our being, the traditional system of morality raises the level of dignity of each individual by showing humanity to be a reflection of the divine Being. In contrast, moral relativism has closed its mind to God and thus shatters the worth of each human person.