Relativism and the Downfall of Civilization

Greetings.

I had an interesting discussion in my Western Civilization class today. The professor explicitly proclaimed during a discussion on Sophism that relativist philosophies (i.e. philosophies that do not recognize absolute truth) are extremely dangerous. She cited numerous serial killers and Adolf Hitler as her proof. She then implied that without an absolute morality and even without a religion, society was doomed to fail.

I find the idea that relativism inevitably leads to narcissism and the destruction of civilization to be a bit offensive. Sure, one can site Hitler and Ted Bundy, but what about Ralph Waldo Emerson? Or Thoreau? Both of these men were some of the greatest American thinkers to ever live, and they were both rabid relativists. Sure, Thoreau tended to take his relativistic ideals to a bit of an extreme, but there was hardly an amorality in it. When he wrote "Civil Disobedience" he was not operating from a place of self-interest. He was operating from a moral high ground. As for Waldo, well, he eventually came around to accepting a sense of morality with regard to abolitionism as well.

I think the thing that's got me in a hissy over this is the implication that one must accept a sense of absolute morality in order to have clear and explicit laws, and therefore civilization. I call shenanigans. If that were the case, then all of the laws that hold our society together would be based on some absolute moral compass, and in that case, I submit to you that there is not a drop of morality in seatbelt laws or motorcycle helmet laws. Those laws are classic examples of laws that exist only to keep the individual who might otherwise break the law safe. Now, I can already see the gears turning in some of your minds saying "Well, Reverend, personal safety can be thought of as a moral issue. Suicide is, after all, considered a sin by most Abrahamic religions, isn't it?" Yes, suicide is considered a sin, but that's not what we're talking about with seatbelt and helmet laws. We're talking about not protecting one's self from potential harm. If you think that is morally wrong, well then you have to look me in the eye and tell me that Mahatma Gandhi was morally wrong. Starving yourself and remaining passive while being beaten, tortured, and oppressed - no matter what the reason - is a perfect example of not protecting yourself from not only potential, but imminent harm.

Ok, I got a little sidetracked there. The point is, we do not, as a society, need to have an absolute sense of morality or truth in order to make explicit laws that hold our society together and carry out justice.

I'll be the first to admit that I may not have thought this post through as thoroughly as I would normally like to, so if you find some flaws in my thinking I really do welcome your feedback on this one.

I am the Reverend Humpy and I have approved this message.