Knowledge and morality are interconnected. What one thinks of morality is determined by one’s idea of knowledge, even though one might not be aware of it. A moral relativist does not believe in a fixed moral code determining what one ought to do and what ought not to do. Hence, as far as he is concerned, marriage and sexual orientation, for example, is a matter of individual preference, not a matter of right and wrong.
The root of moral relativism is its peculiar attitude towards knowledge, which is usually expressed in remarks like: ‘It all depends on how you look at it’; or: ‘Who’s to say!’ or: ‘If it works for you that’s fine’; or simply: ‘Whatever!’.
The moral relativist does not believe in an absolute truth with regard to morality. He believes that there is only ‘your truth’, ‘my truth’ and ‘their truth’. So, any attempt by anybody to priviledge a truth over other truth is considered a patronizing or a disrespectful attitude towards others.
Hence the relativist shuns authority, knowledge, rationality and certainty. He would shrug at a person’s claiming to know the truth, because to him that is simply ‘his view’, while he has his own view and everybody else has his or her own view.
This kind of attitude is widespread among the educated today. It is antithetical to the conservative view that there are real knowable standards, not only in science but also in other fields of knowledge including religion and morality, aesthetics, history and sociology. This is the basic position of Islam. Every Muslim holds that it is possible to know the view that is objective, reasonable and true.
What naturally follows from this attitude is disagreement among people. This disagreement might take the form of a heated argument between two parties in defence of a certain view and in refutation of the other. It might sometimes lead to a war or a mutual agreement to differ.
Relativism seems to be a convenient way of escaping from the fray. The relativist might be thinking of himself as being above the fray altogether, perhaps believing that he has achieved a kind of God’s eye view of the debates that entangle mankind in history.
But can a person truly disengage himself from the debate by pursuing the path of relativism? The fact is one can’t do it without falling intothe trap of self-contradiction. It is not possible to detach oneself altogether without affirming or committing to a certain point of view. The relativist has to begin with what he claims to be the absolute truth acceptable to all. In other words he has to stand somewherewhile at the same time deny that there is anywhere to stand!
It seems that we have just demonstrated the fallacy of relativism. Yet relativism remains. There is a deep-seated belief in the minds of many people that even if we are capable of using reason to argue and criticize, it is not possible to produce a defence of our rules and values that is so totally objective, impartial, and nonarbitrary that anyone, from any culture, will have to accept it.
The argument of the relativistis based upon the basic structure of arguments itself, namely a conclusion is shown to follow from certain premises. Conclusions are always premise-relative, and because of that we can argue with people in a rational way only if we share certain common premises. When we run out of common premises, rational argument comes to an end because our arguments persuade only those who accept the premises from which we begin.
In a society where there is no acceptable authority higher than human reason, relativism is postulated as a means to counter the evil of dogmatism and intellectual despotism.It is not a solution but a necessary evil.
Understood as such, moral relativism will never be the way of a Muslim, who has Revelation as his guidance. So he will never accept western idea of human rights leading to the acceptance of same-sex marriage, taking the Qur’an as his premise, and using the argument of a relativist to deny his obligation to those ideas. Why would he listen to the West in matters of morality whereas they themselves are rejecting the possibility of knowing moral truth.
What makes the West formidable today is merely theirpolitical superiority over the Muslims, whereas in matters of religion and morality they are at dark. Setting aside politics the quarrell between the West and Islam is actually confined to a very specific question namely revelation. The West has nothing to offer as a revelation, whereas Islam has the Qur’an. So,just let the Qur’an speak, and let mankind decide whether it is speaking the truth or not. The duty of every Muslim is to convey.
