Relativism is defined as “a theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.” By definition, “Truth” is totally dependent on things like one's perspective, environment or culture, or his desires or wishes. It is the world as he wishes to see it. What is “true” for one person may be “false” to another with neither of them being considered wrong. For a Relativist, there is no “wrong” unless one does not submit to the tenets of Relativism. That person is then universally wrong.

Since I have previously dealt with the philosophical problems of Relativism and how even those who claim to be purely Postmodern and, thus, Relativists, do not (cannot) live their lives consistently with their beliefs, I will not go into that now.

Instead, using a speech from yesterdays debate in the United States Senate over embryonic stem cell research, I want to deal with a real life example of Relativism at work. Through it, I hope to demonstrate how much issues of public policy, ethics, morality, and everyday life are influenced by competing worldviews and how easy it is for us to fail to recognize it.

Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon argued on the Senate floor for the passage of the bill allowing for broader spending on embryonic stem cell research based on morality from a relativistic viewpoint. Mr. Smith opened his speech with the following:

I believe the Federal government has a vital and moral role to play in the development of stem cell science to ensure that the appropriate ethical guidelines are followed.

Senator Smith is correct in pointing out the important role Congress has by way of a moral role in determining the ethical guidelines the U.S. Government should follow. In this situation, the question arises regarding whose ethics? What constitutes “ethical”? It is clear that there is certainly no consensus in that room on what is “ethical.” Senator Smith went on to say, “If you leave this to the private sector with no moral boundaries, I don't know where this leads.”

Honestly, I do not know what boundaries Senator Smith is proposing. In watching the senator's speech, it is clear that he advocates doing whatever it takes to “find the cure.” How is this any different (or better) than the private sector? If this is Mr. Smith's position, he should most certainly know exactly where it leads.

With Mr. Smith's next remarks, we begin to get a glimpse of his worldview:

The key question that looms over this debate is when does life begin? For me, it begins with mother; with the implantation of an embryo. I believe the Scriptures provide ample support showing that flesh and spirit become one with a mother. This is one of womankind's supernal gifts. I find these verses over and over in the Old and New Testament...[These Scriptures] lead me to feel comfortable in a conclusion—an ethical conclusion—that life begins when flesh and spirit are united and not before.

Without being implanted in a mother's womb, an IVF pluripotent embryo is a group of cells growing in a petri dish. But if those cells are left there for a thousand years, they have no possibility of developing into anything. They remain a group of cells—the dust of the earth—one of the building blocks leading to life. It is the act of implantations within the mother that gives them life.

After years of reflecting on this issue, it has become increasingly clear to me that being pro life requires protecting both the sanctity and the quality of life.

That whole statement is so absurd, I don't really know where to start. I cannot even loosely put together any idea as to where that came from. Certainly not Scripture.

More to the point, though, is the use of “For me.” Don't miss this next part because, in spite of Mr. Smith's claim to Scripture (if that is what it can be called), we begin to see the heart of his worldview. Gordon Smith said a lot in that last statement. Read it again: After years of reflecting on this issue, it has become increasingly clear to me that being pro life requires protecting both the sanctity and the quality of life. [emphasis added]

Did you catch that? Being pro life requires protecting the quality of life. With that statement, we see the direction the United States is moving as a “conservative” makes that kind of statement. See, right now it is the issue of embryos that have no “quality of life.” However, fully developed, this philosophy extends to all who have a questionable quality of life: the physically and mentally disabled, the sick, the elderly, the unwanted. All of these, by someone's definition, has a poor quality of life.

What Mr. Smith has attempted to do with this statement is to redefine what it means to be pro life! Mr. Smith has fully revealed his relativistic worldview and is calling on each of his colleagues (and us) to embrace it:

I believe that one of the great gifts the United States; of the best example of the United States to the world is our pluralism; religious pluralism. It is something that we see in absence tragically in too many places in the world...because of sectarian views which are held to the point of murder.

We, therefore, I do not believe, serve the public well by taking the narrowest theological positions and trying to impose them on public policy. We should be open enough to include other considerations: of ethical ideas, Scriptural interpretations, and scientific hope.

For me, Mr. President, as I consider issues of life and death (note: Mr. Smith brings out an over-sized Bible at this point), I often turn to the Good Book; try to discern wisdom that I do not have of myself and what I find in the earliest pages of the Torah or the Old Testament is this statement: the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.”

Mr. President, I am not a scientist and I am not a theologian, but as I use my agency to interpret this early description of the sanctity of man's—mankind's life, what I read is we are made of dust. Our cells are dust and to the dust we will return. Then you come to the contraction in this verse—the contraction “and”: “...and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life...”. And then you come to another contraction: “...and man became a living being.”

I believe the pluripotent stem cells are one of the building blocks of life. Clearly, they are. But clearly if you leave them in a petri dish for an eternity, they will remain cells—the dust of the earth.

I believe we are missing the understanding of the importance of the spirit; the breath of life; the spirit of mankind as the essential ingredient of when life begins.

So, Mr. President, I do no find that religion and science are in conflict on the Senate floor today. I believe they are in harmony and I believe we should have a broad enough view to include the many views that comprise American pluralism.

The point is that relativistic arguments are arbitrary, at best. It mattered little as to whether Mr. Smith chose this passage, another, or none at all. The emphasis is on what is right and true to him. Sure, this Republican senator wants to have a “broad enough view to include the many views that comprise American pluralism”--when there is no absolute truth, one is left with trying to paint in the broadest of strokes so that no one is actually wrong in their beliefs, any idea with the most votes is “right” and no one loses...except those who believe in Truth.

Labels: David C. Price