"Moral relativism" and a set of commandments

We believe that it is possible to draw up a set of universal moral values that are in the best interests of humanity as a whole. We get very cross when anyone accuses us of being moral relativists. We believe it is the religious in defence of their own views, and those who lack confidence in their own moral values, who are the moral relativists.

We are not moral relativists - we believe in strong moral values. Some behaviour is acceptable, some is not - we draw clear lines and set firm boundaries.

Those of us who are parents encourage freedom of thought and expression, we encourage our children to question everything, including ourselves, and to demand valid answers - but we do not permit unacceptable behaviour. Children have rights - but they also have social responsibilities - hence clear lines and firm boundaries set by parents as adults. (No, we do not hit or shout at children - we treat them with respect but we set the rules for behaviour.)

What is moral relativism?

Moral relativism says that there are no universal moral or social values. Instead, moral and social values depend on your religious beliefs or "cultural traditions".

Those who subscribe to religious moral relativism say that it is not acceptable to criticise someone's moral values based on their "sincerely held" religious or traditional beliefs.

So, for example, religious moral relativism says that it is not acceptable to criticise:

• groups who wish to discriminate against homosexuals because this is what their "sincerely held beliefs" tell them to do.
• groups who wish to discriminate against women because this is what their "sincerely held beliefs" tell them to do.
• groups who deny education and equal rights to girls and women because this is what their "sincerely held beliefs" tell them to do.
• groups who operate on the genitals of their children because this is what their "sincerely held beliefs" tell them to do.
• groups who wish to deny others the right to contraception or abortion because this is what their "sincerely held beliefs" tell them to do.
• groups who wish to educate their children in isolation from other children because this is what their "sincerely held beliefs" tell them to do.
• the holy books, prophets or leaders of religious groups because they are only expressing "sincerely held beliefs."
• etc.

Hitler had "sincerely held beliefs" which led to the deaths of millions of Gypsies, Jews and others - are we therefore not supposed to criticise his "sincerely held beliefs?"

Some people have "sincerely held beliefs" which say that they will get a reward in their afterlife for defending their religion by committing suicide while killing innocent people - are we therefore not supposed to criticise such "sincerely held beliefs?"

Some people have ""sincerely held beliefs" that claim that "condoms cause HIV/AIDS" (Christian leader J. Raztzinger, March, 2009) - are we therefore not supposed to criticise such "sincerely held beliefs?"

A fascist has sincerely held beliefs, a racist has sincerely held beliefs - but in no way are such beliefs acceptable by our moral standards.

Moral and social values are far too important to be left to religion

Moral and social values cannot depend on religion and tradition - because each religion or tradition has its own set of values - frequently in direct conflict with the values of others.

We must therefore have a higher, humanity-based, moral yardstick by which to judge the myriad of "sincerely held beliefs" of different religions and traditions.

Relativism in the classroom.

Mary and her class have been learning about different religions in RE. One day, Mary approaches her teacher and says:

"Please Miss, Islam says that Jesus was a man like other men, Christianity says that Jesus was divine, part of god, the son of god. How do I know which one is right?"

The teacher, afraid of controversy, afraid of challenging religion and tradition, and steeped in PC relativism, replies:

"Different people believe different things. What is true for one group of people is not true for another. Different groups have different truths."

This is relativism in action.

What Mary learns is that there is no "right" or "wrong" and there is no test for "truth". Anything can be right or wrong, true or not true, as long as it is part of a set of "sincerely held beliefs."

As she grows up, Mary learns that she cannot create her own set of universal moral and social values - because it all depends on different religions and traditions. Mary becomes a moral relativist unable and afraid to condemn those with humanity-denying beliefs. Mary finds it hard to argue against someone who claims that they have the moral right to be a suicide bomber in order to defend their "sincerely held beliefs".

A good teacher gives a different answer:

"Islam and Christianity cannot both be right so there are three possible answers:

• Christianity is right and Islam is wrong.
• Islam is right and Christianity is wrong.
• They are both wrong.

This is an absolutely correct answer and it does not expose the teacher's personal point of view.

The trouble is, Mary comes from a strong Catholic family, goes home and tells her mother that "teacher said that Christianity is wrong about Jesus." This may not be what the teacher actually said but it is what gets printing in the local paper when the mother reports it to the Catholic hierarchy which then issues a raging press release.

No wonder teachers feel afraid to tell the truth and afraid to stand up for universal moral and social values.

A set of commandments for the 21st century

This list represents our stab at a set of universal moral and social values.

As always, good freethinkers that we are, we are open to discussion so please contact us with corrections, objections, additions or comments.

We don't claim any monopoly on these ideas - and we are certain that many religious people share them.

1. Cause no harm to fellow human beings by direct or indirect means, by action or inaction, by deed or by speech.
2. Cause no discrimination against a fellow human being on the basis of anything over which the individual has no personal control; for example: skin colour, gender, sexuality, age or disability,
3. Question everything by keeping an open and sceptical mind which seeks evidence for any proposition before accepting it.
4. Treat others as you would have them treat you.
5. Be open, honest, trustworthy, truthful, honourable, just and fair in your dealings with others.
6. Respect those who earn respect by what they do, not by what they claim to believe.
7. Respect those who work for your best interests where such work is just and fair.
8. Respect the property of others.
9. Be well mannered and polite towards others and take into account the feelings of others before embarking on any action.
10. Be responsible for your own actions and accept the consequences of those actions.
11. Follow democratically agreed laws, and accept the consequences of breaking those laws, while retaining the right to challenge and overturn unjust laws.
12. As a parent, bring up children to think for themselves, to question and challenge all ideas - even your own.
13. As a parent, bring up children to be well mannered and well behaved by defining clear boundaries beyond which behaviour is considered unacceptable.
14. Accept that the world does not owe you a living, that you should not be unnecessarily dependent on others and that you have a responsibility to contribute positively to society within the limits of your ability while assisting those less fortunate than yourself.
15. Respect nature and leave a positive legacy for future generations.

"But what if .... ?"

The "commandments" above are not set in stone and like any set of "rules" they cannot anticipate every possible circumstance.

For example: how do we interpret "Cause no harm to fellow human beings ..." when acting in self defence or wishing to act to prevent harm to others?

What do we mean by a human being? Do we mean from the point of conception, from the point of birth or somewhere between?

If we should not discriminate on the basis of age, does that mean we should not tell children how to behave or deny them certain rights we expect as adults?

When we apply any set of rules to everyday life we need to think of democratically generated laws by which society can be governed. We also need to think about who will do the governing, who will be the judges and what rights the citizen has to oppose unjust laws.

So, much as religious people would like the certainty of a small set of unchanging, one size fits all, "rules", the real world is not like that. Things change and vary from one set of circumstances to another. The world is not black and white as seen by a young child, it consists of infinite shades of grey and the older you get, the more the grey areas become obvious.