In a New York Times
editorial “If It Feels Right…,” author David Brooks comments on University of
Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith’s findings. Brooks summarizes that,
according to the discovery of Smith and his research team, most young adults of
ages 18 to 23 think morality is “something that emerges in the privacy of your
own heart”, and that they tend to believe that what makes something moral is
how the individual feels about the action. If this claim is true, then morality
is relative, not objective. However, in this paper I argue that this notion
that morality is relative is contrary to the nature of this universe, and
therefore false, because it defies the rule of logic. To prove how this is so,
I will provide an example of how a human being can discover morality through
the faculty of reason.
This universe we are living
in operates under rudimentary principles of logic. In mathematics, a numerical
representation of logic, there cannot be two answers of different values to a
problem. If two plus two is four, all other values within the range of infinity are wrong. It is self-evident that, if this principle
is not in effect in our world, our world would not be in material form. When an
action made by a subject, for example a human being, is in accordance to the
logical order, then it is moral. If not, it is immoral. We humans call this
logical order of actions moral principles, a guiding set of logical orders that
help us to act righteously. Most of these moral principles can be discovered by
the faculty of human reason much like the way we discover different ways to do
mathematics. To explain further, I will provide an example of how moral
principles can be discovered by the faculty of human reason. If we bother to
withdraw ourselves from our senses and formulate an idea of an organic being,
we will quickly see that organic beings are of finite nature, since finitude is
one of the predicates of anything that is material. In mathematical terms, if
even a little is added to a value, then it is not the said value anymore. If
even a little is taken away from the value, then it is not the said value
anymore. Similarly, this principle can be applied to things of finite nature,
especially organic ones: if too much of emotions or nutrients are exerted or
too much of them are added to organic beings, then it is fatal to them. Human
beings incorporated this principle to themselves. In applying the principle to
human beings, both Aristotelians and Confucians dubbed it as the Doctrine of
the Mean. To provide an example, the only way a human being can maintain good
health in terms of diet is to eat in moderation; one should not eat too much or
too little. Further, the only way a human being can be righteous is to be
angered at right things; one should be angry at unjust things while not being
indifferent or going berserk. In given examples, it can be easily determined
that, if one were to act excessively or deficiently, he would be breaking the
Doctrine of the Mean; maintaining a mean between the excess and deficiency is
the only way one can act righteously in the given examples. Thus, it can be
seen that moral principles can be discovered by the faculty of human reason and
that there can be no two different answers of same value when it comes to
righteous actions.
Moral relativism, however, does not take moral principles
into its system of morality. If one feels that an action is wrong and the other
right, then, in accordance to moral relativism, what is right is how each
thinks is right. Under the system of moral relativism, two or more different
values can be answers to a problem. Under the system of moral relativism, one can
exert anger or be indifferent at unrighteous things. The two actions can both
be right depending on the thinker’s mood. It can clearly be seen that the
notion that what is right and wrong is determined by how the individual feels
is contrary to the nature of this universe, since, as I have established above,
there can be no two different answers of same value when it comes to righteous
actions.
Moral relativism cannot be true,
because it does not hold true to logical principles that are established in this
universe. It is a system that allows two different answers to have a same
value. It is lamentable that so many young adults do not take moral principles
into account when thinking about morality and lean toward their feelings when
deciding what is right and what is wrong.
