Moral Relativism

I confess that I had some trouble understanding this concept at first. It's not a term used often in UK political debates, though it crops up frequently in US debates in the 'culture wars', usually as an attack on the left, from the right wing of politics, and especially the 'religious right'.

As far as I can see, moral relativism can be linked to the Utilitarian strand of Liberalism, which states that the best way to be is that which benefits the majority, or which is accepted in some way by the majority. All very democratic, as befits the work of John Stuart Mill, who helped popularise Utilitarianism. It means that, in essence, there is no absolute right value. If the majority accepts one value, then it is right. Should the majority change their mind, then so be it, the old value is now wrong and the new value is now right. What matters is not what is right, but what works. It's a philosophy that actually eschews values, or rather, denies that they are set in stone for all time. It says, let the people choose, then go with the flow.

This differs from, say, the moral absolutism of a religion, which declares what is right and what is wrong according to its creed, not according to what the people want. If the people disagree, then they must be converted.

In the Chick-fil-A furore recently, the CEO of the company, in an interview, declared that same-sex marriage was wrong, because of his Christian beliefs. This is moral absolutism. It says same-sex marriage is wrong, regardless of whether it is practised happily in other cultures, or whatever. It is considered wrong, and there is no negotiation possible on the position, even if the same-sex couple are not Christians themselves. It would be wrong anywhere in the world - anywhere in the universe, in fact.

The same stance of moral absolutism is taken by those who criticised the CEO for daring to declare this belief, and who protested against it by boycotting Chick-fil-A and holding protests outside their restaurants. To the protesters, any declaration against same-sex marriage is wrong, and non-negotiable. The fact that it's a long standing Christian doctrine is not accepted as a mitigating factor. The fact that many in the US agree with the stance is not accepted either. It's wrong, and that's that.

Both stances of moral absolutism are examples of intolerance and illiberalism. Both stances are also supportive of monoculturism - with their own culture dominant - rather than multiculturism.

They are also examples of how religions, and civic religions, are formed. All that is required is a set of ideals, and the power to enforce those ideals, with the opposition being soundly defeated.

The 'culture war' is not about relativism versus absolutism. It is a civil war between two diametrically opposed forms of absolutism.