A Dance For Moral Relativism

In a recent USA Today article (A dance for chastity), Mary Zeiss Stange criticized evangelical Christians for promoting sexual purity. Ms. Stange is a professor of religion and women's studies at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York. Encouraging children to save sex for marriage, she believes, is both dangerous and intolerant. She decries what she perceives as the patriarchal domination of women (Never mind that these same Christians encourage their sons to remain chaste as well.) and the theft of "sexual self-agency."

Now, of course, Ms. Stange has every political right to disparage Christians. But does she have the moral and/or intellectual right to do so? Her opinion columns have a definite ring of ethical relativism. Ethical relativism (moral relativism) is defined in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy as, "...the theory that there are no universally valid moral principles: all moral principles are valid relative to culture or individual choice."

Assuming Stange is an ethical relativist, what objections could she possibly raise against patriarchal forms of domination that could not be defeated by the reply, "Well, that's your version of morality, not mine." She might appeal to convention, but conventions change as often as individuals and societies desire. Laws favoring and opposing slavery and abortion serve as historical examples.

Francis Beckwith (Associate Professor of Philosophy at Baylor University) has written a helpful primer on moral relativism called Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted In Mid-Air. In it he lists the seven fatal flaws of relativism. Among them is the flaw that relativists can't criticize others for their moral choices. To remain consistent with their own relativism, they have to allow for the different moralities of others.

Ironically, many relativists make a living criticizing the moral choices of others. Ms. Stange, (and other relativists like her) want us to agree that certain behaviors (e.g. patriarchal domination) are morally wrong, not just for a few, but for everyone. Yet her ethic cannot rationally ground such an assertion. She needs an objective moral code from which to criticize and correct others.

Relativists don't really tell us anything about slavery, abortion, patriarchy, or abstinence. Their diatribes are merely an exercise in psychological autobiography. We are given access to their opinions, but not to any objective truth regarding the subjects they address.

Ms. Stange's ethical relativism insulates her readers from taking her seriously. So why should her opinions have any moral traction in persuading others? She will have to hope that her readers are not ethical relativists.