M E R I D I A N     M A G A Z I N E

The Rise of Relativism
and the Decline of Virtue and Freedom in America
by James R. Birrell, Ed.D.
Associate Professor of Teacher Education, BYU

Standing for right is not tyranny- it is compassion.

The revolution of the 1960’s and 1970’s sought to establish a new relativist framework for morality and reality in America- do your own thing. This is the morality and reality of the self, i.e., each man, group or culture individually determining the nature and purpose of truth. In this view, truth exists as an individual and diverse set of preferences and constructs, and not as a universally agreed upon reality. The virtue of democracy, then, by this view is not that it promotes absolute truth, but that it encourages individual and diverse choice about truth. Put another way, relativism deifies choice and difference; democracy is the guardian of both. Freedom to choose is the virtue.

Here’s a non-relativist look at choice. In the Book of Moses, Pearl of Great Price, the Lord states his purpose in providing man--used here in the biblical sense to describe man and woman, with agency or the right to choose. The Lord said, “In the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency…and commanded that they should choose me” (Moses 7: 32-33). In this reality, choice exists that we might freely choose to become “agents” unto God--to willingly present him to and fully represent him in the unbelieving world. Lucifer would have denied us that right to freely choose God. In the imposition of Satan’s totalitarian reign, and the absence of choice, virtue would have escaped us. For choosing God is an act of virtue that increases virtue in us and in the world. Democracy, then, is a set of prerequisite principles that support the conditions necessary to choose God and increase virtue in America- in the world. Freedom to choose is the prerequisite to virtue.

Both of these views about the meaning and purpose of democracy are valid. Choice is essential to freedom; but then, so is choosing virtue. Those who lack virtue may enjoy the liberty afforded by law, but they are not free in the truest sense. As Elder Scott reminded BYU students in a devotional recently, those who make right- virtuous choices will have the right to increased choices in the future. Those who choose poorly, limit future choices. Virtue may well be the key ingredient of true freedom.

Those who understand human nature know that promoting unfettered freedom- apart from virtue encourages irresponsibility and invites a host of attending intended and unintended consequences. This is because human nature is prone to err and at enmity with God (Mosiah 3:19). We see evidence of this everywhere in America- in the world. Self-interest run amok runs over the innocent, thereby creating victims who must bear the consequences of the foolishness of others. Dr. Laura filled page after page with examples of the ways, to borrow a phrase, the sins of the parents are being answered upon the heads of the children today in her book Stupid Things Parents do to Mess up their Kids (2001); it is a sobering read.

Those who understand human nature know that moral laws will more likely encourage moral conduct than will relativist ideals- make your own rules. And they know that moral conduct will usually not create victims, while pursing relativist aims just might. An immoral society will always have to protect itself from one another. Thus, less morality- among other reasons, means more regulation and less freedom; 74,258 pages of proposed and final rules and regulations were added to the Federal Registry in 2000 alone (Twight, 2002) to further legislate our lives for good or bad.

A democracy that cannot produce morality and virtue cannot maintain freedom. I heard a quote once that was attributed to the sociologist Emile Durkheim. As I recall, he said, “When morals are sufficient, law is unnecessary; when morals are insufficient, law is unenforceable.” Only a people who want to be moral will freely choose to be moral, and thus remain so. Otherwise, a reduction of morality will result in a gradual restriction and elimination of freedoms and safety; they simultaneously decline together. Our loss of freedoms since 9/11 is evidence of this truth, so are a host of other regulations imposed upon us because of carelessness, greed, sin and such where others have experienced loss, or to protect us from potential loss. The Celestial Kingdom employs no police; we police our own conduct as we truly embody virtue. Once embodied, we could not imagine being otherwise.

In this segment, I will argue the indisputable and indispensable relationship between freedom and virtue. Together they flourish and thrive; apart they may dwindle and die. And I will refute relativist explanations of freedom- do your own thing. Unfettered freedom cannot guarantee or sustain virtue no matter how well intentioned they are; any virtue taken to extreme loses its virtue, argued Elder Boyd K. Packer (1996). Since relativist societies always argue for the extreme, they eventually lose the greater virtues while holding fast to the lesser ones, and increasingly promote troublesome behaviors that result in new forms of governmental regulation and assistance. Such societies prove that demanding more choice is meaningless without increasing virtue. As with the entertainment industry, choice without virtue leaves us little worth choosing.

Freedom, Virtue and the American Founders

The rebellion of the 1960’s and 1970’s left many Americans confused about the reality of pure virtue and the meaning of true freedom. Thankfully, that has not always been the case in America. Our Founders were clear on the relationship between freedom and virtue; so, I believe, were most Americans prior to 1960. We can be just as clear today- and better activists in promoting virtue and truth. What virtue comes from our silence on matters of virtue? In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams wrote that “without virtue, there can be no political liberty.” He also wrote that the principles that sustain our form of government “are easily destroyed, as human nature is corrupted…. A government is only to be supported by pure religion or austere morals. Private and public virtue is the only foundation of Republics” (in Federer, 2000). On July 4, 1821, John Quincy Adams said:

From the day of the Declaration…they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct.

John Wingate Thorton, in his book The Pulpit of the American Revolution, 1860, quoted John Quincy Adams as saying:

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.

President John Adams spoke to the U.S. military on October 11, 1798 and said:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest chords of our Constitution…[which] was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Earlier, on June 21, 1776, John Adams wrote:

The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.

The religion of Christ is, according to John Adams, “above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity, and humanity” (July 26, 1796- the above quotes and more are cited in Federer, 2000).

These quotes, and I could note hundreds more, reflect the understandings and commitments of our Founders- the greatest minds in matters of freedom and democracy in these last days. The most enlightened among them knew, as do we, that our God-given freedoms stem from our precious virtues; preserving our virtues, then, maintains our precious liberties. How could it be otherwise?

Relativism and the Decline of American Virtue and Freedom

Relativist thinkers might resent arguments like I am about to make. When issues of morality or virtue are raised, relativists are quick to respond- “whose morality” or “whose virtue?” Or they might ask, “Who are you to impose your morality on me?” Such arguments will almost always favor the relativist. Christians, ever eager to be tolerant of difference, may concede the point or abandon the forum at the first sign of resistance (see Jim Nelson Black, 1994). We do this at our own peril.

Here’s an example of what I mean. Gather six people together and ask them to grab hold of one of six strings tied to a rubber band. Have them collaboratively pull on the strings to open the rubber band and individually grasp the bottom of six upside down paper cups- one cup at a time. Next, by pulling open the elastic with the string, release each cup, stacking and forming them into the shape of a pyramid - three cups at the base, two in the center and one at the top. If all willingly cooperate, the task will likely be successful.

Then ask the six individuals to list the attributes it took to successfully work together. They will mention such qualities as cooperation, shared-vision, communication, flexibility, accommodation, patience, and such. These are the essential attributes of democracy that, when understood and implemented, elevate our thinking above our differences and allow us to work together in successful ways. It is highly unlikely that you will hear participants refer to things like ethnic, cultural, gender, sexual or political diversity, etc., while listing and discussing the attributes of success. These are relativist attributes, in that they can possess multiple meanings on earth; however, they may not reflect eternal absolutes; only eternal absolutes are everlastingly real and unchanging. These latter terms- so popular in cultural arguments today are nonessential secondary attributes for success in collaborative or democratic situations. Being Black, White, gay, straight, American, Asian, male or female does not determine your ability to work together- your character attitudes and skill attributes do. This is what Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to get us to see about race politics. A person is more than color or gender; our common characters and values count more than our socially constructed definitions of difference.

Now imagine, gathering a second group of six individuals to complete the cup activity. Five agree that a pyramid is triangular- three at the base, two at the center, and one at the top. The sixth, a relativist, believes that pyramids can be any shape or form; reality is only a choice. “In America,” he proclaims, “we are free to choose our own reality about pyramids. Arguing for absolutes only offends our virtue of choice and diversity; this is un-American.” The other five, believing that it is better to deny what they know is true than to risk offending the minority member- or risk appearing intolerant, consent to altering the nature of truth about pyramids and allowing the minority member his way. After all, they reason in a relativist fashion, who are we to impose our view of pyramids on the world- ours is but one view, albeit the true one, they add reassuringly. And they are reminded that America today is about accommodation, not assimilation. To impose our reality would seem superior- perhaps even intolerant tyranny; it may even be illegal.

Conditioned to honor relativism- packaged as the celebration of diversity, the majority silently allows reality to change. Like relativist pyramids, traditional values begin take on new forms in society under the guise of honoring other people’s right to make different choices. Families reconfigure to validate the choices of others. Parental roles diminish with new dimensions imposed upon society by so-called diverse thinkers. What was once deviant sexuality is now merely diverse sexuality- equality is freedom; freedom is the right to choose for myself the shape of my world. In the chaos of arguing the shape of pyramids, that which was historical and traditional common sense now becomes controversial and judgmental to publicly support, e.g., children need a mom and a dad. In the relativist world of round pyramids, morals- and moralists are now square. And so the five people who agreed to “tolerate” round pyramids could not have known how the shape of everything would change once the relativist camel was in the tent. Allowing the camel in did not honor difference, it dishonored tradition; tradition was not included in the diverse possibilities and explanations worthy of celebrating. After all, celebrating diversity means celebrating anything but historical tradition.

Like the parents of the rebellious children of the ‘60’s and ‘70’s, these five traditionalists could not have known how relativistic ideals would alter society. In their tolerance for relativism, they lost their children and order. They clearly knew the shape of things- but their children are confused. Perhaps these individuals thought that in time their children would see the truth about pyramids and other things, i.e., that families require a legally married mom and dad, sex is to occur after- not before or outside of marriage, and such as they exemplified at home and fought to preserve through wars. Alas, their children were taught in school to respect all pyramids, because all pyramids are equally valid and valuable, as are belief systems about family, sexuality, and such. And they were scorned for thinking that pyramids were only triangular- this was the mythology of the majority, designed- some allege, to oppress those with alternative views about pyramids.

Today many in the majority are reluctant to suggest that the greater purpose of the American founding was to unite a diverse populace under a certain, self-evident set of moral absolutes. Such would allegedly oppress the modern day relativist who assumes the role of the modern day founder- each one determining the meaning of America, and deciding if- for example, they’ll say the pledge or support the nation through war, and such. Each one is taught to question what was once held dear by past Americans who knew what it meant to be loyal Americans, as opposed to “useful idiots,” a term Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin once called Western liberals who knowingly or unknowingly helped his Communist cause (see Charen’s new book, Useful Idiots: How Liberals got it wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First, 2003).

When majorities impose their collective wisdom on minorities, they are sometimes accused of tyranny. How often does this really happen? The Book of Mormon asserts that it is uncommon for the majority to support wrong if they are living right (see Mosiah 29: 26). Accordingly, not everything the majority stands in agreement on is wrong; it is not oppressive to argue that pyramids are triangular. Standing for right is not tyranny- it is compassion. Certain pathetic individuals within a majority may tyrannize a minority member, but rarely do entire majorities. Our American history is full of examples of the sensibilities of the majority, beginning with the Civil War to- among other things, end slavery. In a roundabout way, the goodness of the majority was also evidenced in Roe v. Wade. The backers of unfettered abortion did not appeal to the sensibilities of the majority. They knew better. So they appealed to the courts to force a minority opinion on the majority; this was the tyranny of the minority, and we see it more and more in the corruption of our legal system (see Catherine Crier, The Case Against Lawyers, 2002) and society.

In conclusion, I have argued the illustration of pyramids to make a point. Relativism does not increase freedom- it breeds chaos. Chaos invites regulation- regulation always demands taxation. Regulation and taxation limit freedom. As Christians, we must be far more diligent about standing up to this relativist ideology in all its shades and shapes, and not fall prey to the new rules of tolerance being forced upon us. Too many of us, in our efforts to be fair and sensitive, may affirm relativism in our thinking and actions. Being tolerant about the wrong things will cost us our virtue- then our freedoms. I will say more about this in my next article on the shifting nature of tolerance in America.

References
Charen, Mona (2003). Useful Idiots: How liberals got it wrong in the Cold War and still blame America first. Washington, D.C: Regnery Publishing.

Crier, Catherine (2002). The Case against Lawyers. New York: Broadway Books.

Durkheim, Emile (1961). Moral Education. New York: The Free Press.

Federer, William (2000). America’s God and country: Encyclopedia of Quotations. St.Louis, MO: Amerisearch, Inc.

Nelson Black, Jim (1994). When Nations Die. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.

Schlessinger, Laura (2000). Stupid Things Parents do to mess up their Kids. New York: Simon & Schuster. (a.k.a. Parenthood by Proxy).

Twight, Charlotte (2002). Dependent on D.C.: The Rise of Federal Control over the lives of ordinary Americans. New York: St. Martins Press.

Click here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.