On Monday, I introduced this brief series in which I am addressing some comments made by Resident Atheist to a previous post I put up on the "Summer of Love." Here's the next installment. (See part 1 of the series here.)
In his comments, Resident Atheist went on to say,
...Moral relativism isn't just some fancy theory used by liberals to justify their behavior. It's a requirement of living in a world with more than one person. There are always gray areas that two completely sane, decent, moral people will disagree upon. Is it immoral to drive with a blood alcohol content of .08? What about .079? What about .0799?...
Resident Atheist, I wanted to expand a bit further on my position about moral relativity. I agree that "moral relativism isn't just some fancy theory used by liberals to justify their behavior." And I would also agree with your contention regarding the need for some moral relativity in relation to society, that at a base level, a certain amount of moral relativity is necessary to function.
Where I would deviate from your example is that there is a difference between moral principles and moral rules. According to how I would define that distinction, moral principles encompass the generally desired goals of a group or culture (e.g. "Don't drive drunk.") and moral rules are the specific application of those established principles within that culture. (In this case it has been determined, "If you are driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08 or higher, you are considered legally drunk and subject to penalty.")
Obviously, one has to draw the line somewhere as to what a principle might look like in terms of its pragmatic application. Where I preach caution and concern, however, is when the gradual evolution of the particular rules begins to undermine the moral principles themselves (which, it could be argued, is part of the "Summer of Love" legacy).
For example, I've often highlighted sanctity of human life issues throughout this blog, in part because, from my perspective, they provide some of the most blatant examples of moral devolution in our culture. No matter what position a person may take on sanctity of life issues, one cannot miss their expanding realms of influence on our culture--from euthanasia to abortion to embryonic stem cell research. For the sake of argument, if the "All human life is sacred" is the principle, then the continuation of abortions, expanding legality of euthanasia (in places like Oregon), and increased pursuit of embryonic stem cell research, appear to be diluting that principle. And one could argue that the moral rule of Roe v. Wade has undermined, not strengthened the moral principle of the sanctity of human life.
This begs the questions about what the particular moral principles should be and how we are to define them. But where moral relativity becomes destructive is when the princpled standard for morality is in a constant state of flux such that it begins to erode the moral foundation of our society. If, for example, we cannot claim the "all human life is sacred" principle, we begin to sow the seeds of our own eventual human destruction. It never happens overnight, but like a porous dam, the gradual erosion eventually brings about a flood of devastating consequences. Until next time... 
I’m afraid it really doesn’t matter to me whether they are principles or rules, neither are ‘established’. While you might get more people to sign on for principles, the devil is in the details. It’s not until you start to really define things like ‘life’ and ‘drunk’ and ‘steal’ and ‘vice’ that you can flesh out what society will deem as acceptable behavior.
You seem to think the rules may change the principle. I see it as the opposite. The rules better define a vague principle. Discussing these rules and constantly revising them is natural and healthy in a thoughtful society.
You preach caution because you disagree with the way society is defining the principle of the sanctity of life. I haven’t seen you complain about the constant flux of drunken driving ‘rules’ because society is moving more towards your position (changing laws from .10 to .08 BAC). It’s not the public debate or attempt to codify it that you should be complaining about. It’s the opposing positions you should fight. The system works fine.
I get nervous any time someone says ‘Don’t think for yourself. Just go with the establishment.’ Did the Summer of Love take some issues of morality too far? Sure. I said in my original post that I would never defend it. I would, however, defend a legacy of challenging establishment.
Posted by: Resident Atheist | July 20, 2007 at 10:55 PM