I en föreläsning jag nyligen lyssnade på gör Peter Kreeft (filosofiprofessor vid Boston College) följande analys:
The existence of a real morality, a real distinction between good and evil, cannot be explained without something like God. That argument presupposed the premise that good and evil are objectively real. Many people say they don’t believe that premise. They say morality is man-made, subjective and relative. Like the rules of a game or politics.
But when you ask this people whether they really believe that it’s okay to rape, or to be a Hitler, or a cannibal, or even to burn down the rain forest, they don’t say then that morality is only subjective.
When they tell you not to impose your morality on them, suppose you tell them ‘That’s your morality, but imposing morality on other people, that’s my morality!’ And tell them not to impose their morality of tolerance and respect and justice on you. If you tell them that you’ll soon see whether they’re really moral relativists or not.
You’ll find out that they are only selective relativists, that pretty much the only things they’re relativistic about has something to do with sex. That sounds silly and simplistic to say, and I feel a little bit like the little boy in The Emperor’s New Clothes for saying it. But I don’t say it in order to be provocative, I say it because it seems to be true.
(Källa: ”Ethics: A History of Moral Thought”, föreläsning 4, ”Being Good & Being Pious – Plato’s Euthyphro”, från ca 27 minuter och framåt. Föreläsningssamlingen är utgiven av Recorded Books och mer information finns här.)
Jag kunde, av ytterst uppenbara skäl, inte ha sagt det bättre själv! ;-)