24th June 2009
Moral Standards, Moral Relativism and Differing Opinions
By Mark Hanson
What are the basic standards of freedom and responsibility in a democracy? This question brings a complex and extremely varied response. Experts and western governments have tried to answer this, with the resulting Geneva Convention, UN Declaration of Human Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights. Yet even those seriously thought-out pieces of international accord do not begin to address the many complexities of this issue. I could not hope to give a complete answer either, yet I feel that there are some important guides.
Firstly, any totally liberal society would descend into debauch and lurid expressions of “freedom”. In this regard every successful empire has eventually fallen victim of its own success. Most notable examples are the original Babylonian Empire, which became exceedingly corrupt and was over run by the Medo-Persians. Likewise the Roman Empire became obsessed with pleasure and individual ambition, and was brought low by a loose alliance of “barbarians”.
This can be seen in the West today. The concept of “freedom” is often confused with licentiousness, the freedom to do whatever you please so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.
The trouble with this is the accompanying moral relativism, which states that “such and such may be right for you, but not for me”. Therefore one may say it is okay to steal from big companies, another may say that it is alright to set fire to a symbol of capitalism. It is seriously and fatally flawed.
No society can hope to survive such a tyranny under guise of freedom. A society needs a firm set of guidelines as to what is permissible and what is not.
This is what was brought in, by God through Moses, in the form of the Law (the first five books of the Old Testament). This was intended to be a blessing to the people of Israel, providing they kept it.
In Britain today, the vast majority of our laws derive from these and accompanying sets of principles. Whether “liberals” like it or not, Britain has a rich Christian heritage, and the Christian principles are the most complete and effective definition of moral standards. The alternatives of moral relativism or Islamic domination are not effectual nor desirable.
Yet we must be very careful here. The temptation, which human rights activists are especially prone to, is to regard the modern perspective of “basic rights” as immutable and universal. We should not attempt “cultural imperialism”. Neither should we be so arrogant as to suggest that the democratic and liberal philosophy of the west has “got it right” whilst the more conservative and autocratic systems have “got it wrong”.
What is needed is a fine balance. I am not suggesting that the State and the Church should be joined. Neither am I suggesting that we should accept injustice.
What I am attempting to convey is that there is a real necessity in societies and between societies to both have a clear idea of a moral framework with a firm basis, and to have a respectful acceptance of differing opinions.
In a vibrant and healthy democracy, people should be free to express themselves and their opinions without fear of persecution (whether State sanctioned or societal), but there must also be a clear set of standards for behaviour.
Otherwise the increasing tensions and divisions within that society will bring increasing dominance of power-wielders and increasingly tyrannous defence of that power structure. And we see such developments happening in the UK today.
