Yahweh or relativism?
Taking up an oft used canard of social conservatives, Dennis Prager claims that morality offers us only two choices, namely belief in the Judeo-Christian God and His Commandments, on the one hand, or moral relativism, on the other:
In the Judeo-Christian value system, God is the source of moral values and therefore what is moral and immoral transcends personal or societal opinion. Without God, each society or individual makes up its or his/her moral standards. But once individuals or societies become the source of right and wrong, right and wrong, good and evil, are merely adjectives describing one's preferences. This is known as moral relativism, and it is the dominant attitude toward morality in modern secular society.
Yes, in his expert opinion, either you honor Yahweh or you are a relativist.
He concludes his column by excoriating academics for their moral confusion:
In secular society, where there is no God-based morality, there is no moral truth to pursue. The consequences may be easily seen by observing that the most morally confused institution in America, the university -- where good and evil are often either denied or inverted -- is also its most secular.
For a response to Prager's claim that a denial of Judeo-Christian absolutism leaves us with relativism, I recommend Professor David Velleman's post "Relativism isn't in the eye of the beholder."
As for Prager's satisfaction with theological voluntarism, I recommend Plato's Euthyphro.
Prager's claim to be a moral authority is appalling enough, given his confusion about basic moral philosophy and his willingness to indulge in the typical rhetorical mudslinging of his Townhall comrades.
But what I find truly revolting is his inability to recognize the true moral danger presented by the nihilists at work in the Bush administration.
11:16:03 PM 
|
|
