Peter Espeut | Dictatorship of relativism

“We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognise anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires” – Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

In his homily in St Peter’s Square before the 2005 conclave that would soon choose him as the successor of Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger issued the warning quoted above. After his election as Pope (he took the name Benedict XVI) he developed this theme.

Benedict resigned in 2013 and went into retirement, and died last Saturday; he was buried yesterday. In tribute to this man – one of the most brilliant minds in modern times – I wish to present his thesis as best I can so you can judge for yourselves how insightful he was.

The relativism of which he spoke is the philosophy of life that holds nothing to be true, and that – in fact – nothing can be true, because everything is subjective. What is true is what I want to be true; there is no objective standard of truth, no way to objectively determine what is true or false.

Therefore, nothing can be ethically right or ethically wrong, and all religions are equally right (or wrong). It’s up to the individual to decide for himself or herself what is right or wrong for them. The “standard” is that there is “no standard”. I determine the “standard” for me.

SOUND FAMILIAR

Does this sound familiar? It should! It is the dominant ethos in some sectors of contemporary society. There is no such thing as “bad English” (or bad patois); there is a range of how people speak or write, and nothing is really wrong. If you are born biologically male (with XY chromosomes), and you wish to be female, then fine! Nobody can tell you what gender you are, so you can use whichever toilet you wish, and run in the Olympics as whatever gender you wish. And marriage can be whatever you want it to be: man and woman, man and man, two men and one woman, and you can throw in the dog for good measure.

None of this is new; Relativism is an antique theory. The great thinker and father of history Heraclitus (ca. 500 BC) noted that cultures differ in their beliefs and customs [History 3, 38], and none is more true than the other. The Greek philosopher Protagoras (490-420 BC) challenged the religious and moral wisdom of his day, arguing that each individual’s own opinions are the measure of truth [see Plato Theaetetus 151ff]. There was therefore no possibility of ethics, and no religion could claim validity.

This philosophy of life was dismissed as invalid centuries ago by the great philosophers Socrates (470-399 BC), Plato (420s-340s BC), and Aristotle (384-322 BC). And if you think about it, it has to be nonsense. Either Relativism is the real truth about the universe, in which case by its own standard it must be false, since Relativism says there is no real truth; or relativism is not the real truth, in which case we should all stop thinking about it.

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle went on to develop a system of logic and reasoning which can derive a valid ethics that is reasonable. Every student of philosophy is exposed to this approach to determining truth and the good.

SEEK TRUTH

Humanity is capable of truth, and must seek truth, with criteria for verification and falsification. Truth points out to us those values which have made mankind great. This is what the study of philosophy is about.

The danger today is that our deteriorating education system does not teach philosophy, so the average man/woman is not able to use reason to see the inconsistencies in relativism.

“A dictatorship of relativism is being constituted that recognises nothing as absolute and which only leaves the ‘I’ and its whims as the ultimate measure” Pope Benedict said. “If it feels good, do it!” And have an abortion if your pregnancy is inconvenient.

In his 2007 best-seller Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam Benedict said:

“I find myself noting how the more relativism becomes the generally accepted way of thinking, the more it tends toward intolerance. Political correctness … seeks to establish the domain of a single way of thinking and speaking. Its relativism creates the illusion that it has reached greater heights than the loftiest philosophical achievements of the past. It presents itself as the only way to think and speak – if, that is, one wishes to stay in fashion. … I think it is vital that we oppose this imposition of a new pseudo-enlightenment, which threatens freedom of thought as well as freedom of religion.”

While appearing to be the very essence of neutrality and equity – “all views are equal and equally valid” – and debunking all religion, Relativism actually proposes itself (ironically) as a new religion, that seeks to subordinate all religions to the super-dogma of Relativism.

In his 2004 best-seller Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions, Cardinal Ratzinger notes that “Relativism … in certain respects has become the real religion of modern man,” the religion that stands at the heart of modern secular civilisation. Because Christianity challenges dogmatic relativism and its attempt to normalise, for example, homosexuality and abortion, Christianity must be persecuted. Relativism argues for tolerance and inclusivity, but does not offer it to competing philosophies.

NEW INTOLERANCE

A new intolerance is spreading; there are well-established standards of thinking that are being imposed on everyone; e.g. some say that for the sake of “not offending anyone”, civil servants must not wear religious symbols, or there must be no prayer in public schools, or disapproval of LGBT must not be expressed. With all this, we are basically experiencing the abolition of tolerance, for it means that religion (Christianity, Islam) is no longer allowed to express itself visibly.

In the name of tolerance, tolerance is being abolished. The danger is that “reason” now claims that it has recognised what is right, and other views must be anathema. This view is inimical to freedom. No one should be forced to be Christian; and no one should be forced to live according to the “new religion” as though it alone were definitive and obligatory for all mankind.

I have long advocated that philosophy be part of the curriculum in secondary and tertiary education. Joseph Ratzinger would have approved.

Peter Espeut is Dean of Studies at St Michael’s Theological College. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com