"Only a madman could maintain that the distinction between the honorable and the dishonorable, between virtue and vice, is a matter of opinion, not of nature." --Cicero in de Legibus
A Societal Shift
The last 40 years or so has seen a dramatic shift in the way people view moral truth. It has been a move away from the idea of morality as a set of objective and universal standards, to the view that moral codes are merely the synthesis of popular opinion. Consider the Episcopal cleric who supported the ordination of homosexual priest, Gene Robinson, as bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire. When asked by a reporter how he could back an action that was at odds with the bible, the cleric responded that the movement of the spirit in community takes precedence over scriptural revelation. In other words, moral truth is based on the collective feelings of individuals within a people group, rather than on the timeless standards of the Revealed Word. But how did this shift come about?
Emboldened by the advances of the Enlightenment, the ideologues of 20th century modernism envisioned the inauguration of a utopian age through the wonders science and technology and the evolution of human reason. However, after two world wars, the Cold War, Vietnam, enduring poverty, corporate corruption, and the growing rates of crime and human rights atrocities, modernity failed to deliver on its promissory note. As society became increasingly disillusioned with the modern vision, cynicism soon replaced optimism giving birth to a post-modern mood. It is a mood in which morality is more about feeling good than about being good, making the very mention of moral truth a boorish and arrogant breach of good manners. And nowhere is this "code of civility" more evident than in our growing hesitation in identifying evil and calling it out by name.
Naming Evil
Addressing a national conference a while back, UN General Secretary Kofi Annan stated "Unquestionably, very evil things happen in the world...the difficulty is to know where to draw the line...If we are intent on naming evil, then let us name it intolerance." Mr. Annan's ambivalent sentiment captures both the mood, and the inherent self-refutation of postmodern thought. For if evil is intolerance, then one must be tolerant of even intolerance, lest he be labeled evil. That could partly explain why the UN has had such a disappointing record in executing and enforcing international justice. For according to the chief spokesman of international law, such actions would be intolerant, and therefore, evil.
