I hear it a lot: post-moderns (pomos) are moral relativists; they don’t believe that there is any absolute truth.I don’t buy that, at least not in full measure. It’s far too simplistic and naive for one thing. Among younger pomos (15-30), there is a resurgence in spirituality and religious interest. 20 somethings are far more likely than any other age group to be involved in charity work and volunteer participation for the needy. Blogs, chat rooms, and discussion boards on the web related to discussions of morality, religious truth and experience are too numerous to even count (perhaps millions).
I don’t think the issue is the moral relativism of the post-modern mind; I think it is rather the inability of modernity’s view of the human person, science, faith, and culture to see the reality of the human condition and transcendant moral truth. The 20th Century has seen the collapse of modernity’s humanisitic and secularist framework and the generation being born at the start of this new century live in a world where reality appears to be completely at odds with religious and moral claims.
I read this interesting reference in Touchstone’s June ’05 issue:
“Very few teens are hardcore relativists,” argued Christian Smith, sociologist and author . “In fact, they are quite moralistic. They will confidently assert that certain things are right or wrong. What they can’t do is explain why that’s the case, or what’s behind their thinking…”
Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers, C. Smith
Real moral relativists make no such assertions about right and wrong; they can’t. Post-modernity certainly has its share of such thinkers; so did modernity. In fact, it seems pretty clear by this point that the 20th Century was abundant with practical moral relativism: doing whatever one desired and calling it morally right. If Smith is right, what’s missing now is not a belief in moral absolutes but the understanding of why and where they come from. Pomos on a genuine search for meaning and truth in life will soon acknowledge that there is or at least ought to be right and wrong and that this has some basis beyond merely human wishfulness. This truth, as Paul says in Romans, God has made evident in the world itself.
Without a clear and confident explanantion affirmed by moral behavior from those that claim to have the answers, these seekers of moral meaning are left open to any explanation. They’re not denying moral absolutes; they’re looking to understand why and how they work. There are plenty of competitors for their minds and hearts and if the Body of Christ in the world doesn’t respond to this quest, someone else will. It ought not surprise us, then, as moral and thological observers of the world that when someone is seeking for truth, they will respond to those who respond to them. If we’re not careful, we’ll be too satisfied to chalk this up to moral relativity and march along critiquing a culture oblivious to the fact they’re dying to hear what we have to say.
Even more sinister is the thought that, in the end, perhaps we don’t have anything to say after all. Maybe that is where moral relativism starts.
