I was thinking about the effects that pluralism have on morality this morning, and I must acknowledge that humanity is in need of universal truth. We live in an age where truth is subjective, where men and women do as they please, where ‘what is true to me, might not be true to you’, therefore there is no standard beyond the mere restraints of the criminal and civil laws which have been established.
But we are heading towards a day where law will become more and more elusive. Maybe to the point of such confusion that justice can no longer maintained.
“It is clear by the discussion that one’s view of morality is bound inextricably to one’s idea of ultimate reality. If one’s philosophical commitments lead him to deny the actuality of the transcendent, then it follows he cannot affirm the existence of universals or absolutes. Moreover, if universals do not exist, then all there is, are the particulars, but in such a case, there is no objective way to assess the meaning of the particulars. Meaning must be derived from only the relationship of one particular to another. The end is, as Weaver suggests, that man is the measure of all things and, in the case of morality, all that is left is relativism. In this relativistic context, everybody’s moral views must have equal weight.”
How then can we know right from wrong, truth from error?