Objective Truth versus Relativism
Edward J. Dodson
[April 1996]
RESPONDING TO THE ASSERTION,
THAT:
"All belief systems are essentially arbitrary and,
therefore, equal."
|
Asserting that "All belief systems are essentially
arbitrary and, therefore, equal" goes much too far in the
direction of putting a stamp on moral relativism.
Belief systems are arbitrary the extent to which they conflict
with reason and evidence derived from investigation and experience.
Divine inspiration may coincidentally provide one with a belief
system that stands the tests of reason and experience, but only
coincidentally. People have used reason to argue the existence of
god or gods for thousands of years. In the absence of conclusive
proof, however, one is left with faith as a repository of belief.
Our powers of reason and self-contemplation, on the other hand, arm
many of us with a healthy dose of skepticism.
The belief system that best serves us is that which contributes to
our survival as a species. As we have evolved, we have gradually
acquired a moral sense of right and wrong, good and evil, just and
unjust, wise and foolish. Our moral sense has not yet been perfected
and is far too easily harmed by the absence of positive nurturing
within our family, our community and our society. But, it is there,
as evidenced by our everyday actions and the consensus of support or
opposition for certain types of behavior. Where moral sense is on
less solid ground, the process of public debate continues until
consensus is achieved. On issues such as capital punishment and
abortion, consensus may never be achieved.
Although the core teachings of the world's major religions are
built around remarkably similar codes of behavior, the capture of
these teachings by self-professed priesthoods and institutional
hierarchies has substituted control and power in the place of
respect for universal principles of human rights. As the writer and
self-taught philosopher Eric Hoffer observed, religions as
institutions of power demand unquestioning faith in the peculiar
applications of doctrine, doctrine the holders of power magically
acquire by divine inspiration. Pity the true believers, but
be on guard for they are capable of unspeakable atrocities in the
name of their god(s).
One person who combined the healthy skepticism of experience with
a socio-political philosophy based on moral sense was Thomas Paine.
In an era remarkable for challenges to established authority, Paine
was one of the few courageous enough to follow reason and evidence
to their appropriate conclusions. The socio-political philosophy he
espoused is, I suggest, best described with the term cooperative
individualism. What he offers is not a system of beliefs;
rather, Paine presents and defends a system of values. He borrows
from John Locke, and many of his ideas were independently paralleled
and further developed late in the nineteenth century by Henry
George. Without crediting either Paine or George, philosopher
Mortimer J. Adler reached many of the same conclusions. From their
writings, I reconstruct the principles of cooperative
individualism below, principles that, in effect, serve as a
declaration of human rights:
- That, all human beings share the same species-specific
characteristics and have a similar need for the goods
that make for a decent human existence.
- That, such goods include adequate food, clothing,
shelter, nurturing, health care, education, civic
involvement and leisure.
- That, we join together in a natural society in order to
enhance our possibilities to acquire such goods and
for our mutual benefit, protection and survival.
- That, the source of the material goods necessary
for our survival and happiness is the earth, equal access to
which is the birthright of every person.
- That, in the pursuit of such material goods each
person has the sole right to the use and disposition of
whatever material goods are produced by his or her labor
(whether produced by labor alone or with the assistance of
other material goods [i.e., capital] created and
utilized for that purpose).
- That, such material goods, by virtue of
acquisition by means of one's labor or voluntary exchange
with others, fall exclusively in the realm of natural
property.
- That, human behavior falls within the scope of liberty
when such behavior in no way infringes on the
opportunity for other persons to use their efforts to
produce or obtain by exchange material goods.
- That, human behavior ventures beyond the scope of liberty
and within the realm of criminal license when
such behavior results in the physical or mental harm to
another person or the theft and/or destruction of one's natural
property.
- That, human behavior ventures beyond the scope of liberty
and within the realm of economic license when
such behavior denies to others persons the opportunity to
use their efforts to produce or obtain by exchange material
goods.
- That, a society by virtue of practical considerations,
grants economic licenses to persons (individually
and collectively) the result of which is to convey
privileges not enjoyed by others. To the extent such economic
licenses come to have exchange value in the market
place, such exchange value is acknowledged to be
societally-created. Justice requires, therefore, that a
natural society collect this value for distribution to all
its members as a social dividend or for use in providing for
societal amenities and services democratically agreed upon.
- That, a society is determined to be just to the extent
liberty is fully experienced and protected, equality
of opportunity prevails, criminal license is
prevented and when prevention fails appropriately penalized,
the full exchange value of economic licenses is
collected for distribution and/or societal use; and
- That, the material goods (i.e., the wealth)
produced by the labor of individuals (and whatever capital
goods they also legitimately acquire) is protected as one's
natural property; and, therefore, not subjected to
taxation or otherwise confiscated.
|
|