OPINION: The Question of Moral Relativity

In its 226 years as a constitutional nation, our country has never faced a more trying ethical and moral dilemma than it does today. Through those two centuries of war and peace, strife and tranquility, political battling and cooperation, America remained a functioning machine of democracy because the moral structure of our society was never compromised with ambiguity or relativism. This great enemy that faces us today is that same misconception that has been fought over for time immemorial: The question of moral relativity.

The great ends of a moral society are not to be debated, that preservation of innocent life, the heart of liberty, and the cultivation of a youth that understands the immensity of the preceding. That same moral society indeed can only function if moral ambiguity of any of these essential structures is understood to be impossible. The relativist will have you believe that the morality of our government should be based upon principles derived from popular consensus, some notion of the will of the people.

But this will of the people, is it not simply the will of the majority? By what right should our government, a government founded by a minority of people who believed in true liberty, declare that the morals of our constitution are subject to the immortal tide of popular will. In fact, in its structure our Constitution creates a system that is purposed with the protection of the minority will. As is seen in most cases in the past, will of the minority has often proven to be the will that is closest to the absolute truth.

How best to achieve the great moral ends of society than to have absolute moral ends. There cannot only be absolute truths on some things, as our leftist counterparts have so indicated The issue of abortion is the very definition of the fault line that runs through the liberal ideology of political and moral relativism. The direct taking of an innocent life is morally repugnant, and thus there is no debate suitable to justify its counterpart The Left will scream cries of the Right not “realizing that women have a right to their own bodies,” but does this argument not completely negate the right of the other person involved in the situation to its body. These arguments of rights infringements are being perpetrated in the interest of preserving innocent life, and thus they are justified in the eyes of moral truth.

The same moral relativity that has plagued the liberal agenda from its creation continues to invade all issues of political morality in the face of the nation today. What is needed is an absolute clarity on what the moral ends of our great American Society are, but this clarity already lies within our own Constitution: The preservation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This encompassing sentence gives clear directive to the moral ends of America and rights of American citizens. What is debated in legislature and in the courts, is to be the moral means by which our society will achieve those ends. This is the focus of our nation.

Let us know that the right to life is one that is extended to all peoples in America. This life is not to be infringed on in its course, but it is certainly not to be infringed on at its conception. That is not abiding by the constitutional contracts we are so sworn by when we are made citizens of these great United States of America.