In this blog I intend to discuss the difference between moral clarity and moral relativism and how one leads to liberty and the other to license.
Moral clarity is establishing a clear distinction between right and wrong, natural and unnatural. This is done not on our own power but by recognizing that they are contained within the moral precepts inherent in the natural order which we inhabit (a subset of the divine order for those of us God-believers). This leads to the formation of a Republic that governs fairly and justly, a Republic where you may have all the freedom you want provided that what you seek is not wrong and/or disordered. And should you happen to do something that is rightfully considered a crime expect to answer for that crime, or expect to not be able to participate in some institutions whose rules are based upon natural law. That sounds fair enough to me, that our freedoms must necessarily be limited by the constraints of moral clarity. This is liberty.
Moral relativism, however, is the exact opposite. Moral relativism states, quite simply: It’s all good. Moral relativism rejects the notion that there must be a clear distinction between right and wrong, and in many ways attempts to state that there is no such thing as right vs. wrong. this leads to a society where people are allowed to commit the gravest of crimes against humanity or live lifestyles that exist in total opposition to natural law. Basically this is a society where wrongdoing has just as much respect as right doing. This leads to those who believe that wrongdoing should be punished being called “haters.” This isn’t liberty. This is, quite simply, license. And license cannot exist in a society that hopes to call itself free.