In today’s political landscape, conversations have become increasingly polarized, with each side entrenched in their perspectives, often to the point of irreconcilable opposition. This decline in productive discourse isn’t just a result of differing opinions; it reflects a deeper issue with the foundations upon which modern morality and ethical frameworks are built. Central to this issue is the rise of relativistic morality, a worldview that suggests moral principles are subjective and based on individual or cultural perspective rather than objective standards. While this may appear to promote tolerance, it has, in practice, contributed to the devolution of political discussion, where reason and common ground have become increasingly scarce. In contrast, an objective moral framework, rooted in communal religion, ethics, or a shared sense of right and wrong, offers a more stable and constructive foundation for society.

The Rise of Relativistic Morality

Relativistic morality, the notion that “truth” and “right” are subjective and depend on personal or cultural beliefs, has gained significant ground in recent decades. The idea that morality is not universal but relative has been championed as a means of promoting diversity and tolerance. If all viewpoints are equally valid, then the thinking goes, we can avoid conflict by simply respecting differing opinions.

However, this premise has led to an unintended consequence: a breakdown in the very structure needed for meaningful political discourse. In a world where morality is seen as fluid and subjective, debates often devolve into arguments over “personal preference” rather than discussions of truth or objective principles. Rather than engaging in constructive conversations about the best way to serve the common good, political discussions now often become about the validation of opposing ideologies. Each side believes their version of truth is just as valid as the other, and because there is no universal benchmark for right and wrong, common ground is elusive.

As a result, political debates have become less about finding solutions to shared problems and more about the validation of personal or ideological worldviews. The disintegration of objective morality has created a void in which the loudest, most forceful opinions dominate, not necessarily the most reasoned or ethical ones. In essence, relativism encourages a sort of moral chaos—where all moral beliefs, no matter how contradictory, are treated as equally legitimate.

The Dangers of a Relativistic Society

One of the key dangers of relativistic morality is that it erodes the foundation for a functioning, cohesive society. Without an objective moral compass, it becomes challenging to establish laws, principles, or social norms that apply to all citizens. This leads to fragmentation, as individuals or groups adopt competing value systems, making compromise and collaboration increasingly difficult.

Moreover, relativism places the individual at the center of morality. If morality is entirely subjective, personal feelings and desires become the ultimate determinant of right and wrong. This can foster a culture of individualism, where societal responsibility, collective well-being, and even empathy toward others are undermined in favor of personal autonomy and self-interest. As political discussions grow more polarized, it’s easy to see how relativistic morality contributes to this fragmentation, where each person or group is simply acting in their own self-interest with little regard for a shared, common good.

The Case for Objective Morality

In contrast, the argument for objective morality provides a strong counterpoint to the relativistic worldview. Objective morality asserts that there are universal principles of right and wrong that exist independently of human opinion or cultural context. These principles can be discovered and understood through reason, experience, or divine revelation, but they exist outside of the fluctuations of individual or cultural preferences.

The most compelling argument for objective morality lies in its ability to provide a common ground for political discourse. In a society where objective moral principles are recognized, political debate becomes less about personal belief systems and more about the search for solutions that align with shared ethical values. It becomes a process of applying reason and discussion to discover the best way to uphold universal principles of justice, fairness, and the common good.

One of the most effective ways to ground objective morality in society is through communal religion, ethics, or a shared cultural framework. Religion has traditionally provided societies with a foundation of moral values that transcends individual preference. Even for those who do not adhere to a particular religious tradition, the communal aspect of religion reinforces a collective sense of responsibility to one another and to higher moral standards. The shared rituals, values, and ethics of religion offer a touchstone for communities to evaluate actions and policies that are consistent with a moral order greater than individual desires.

Additionally, communal ethics or morality rooted in shared history, cultural practices, and collective experience can provide a sense of unity and direction in political discourse. When people share a common ethical framework, they are more likely to engage in conversations about what is best for the community rather than just for themselves. This leads to more cooperative, less adversarial political discussions, fostering a sense of solidarity even in times of disagreement.

Objective Morality and the Restoration of Political Discourse

Restoring objective morality to the political sphere does not mean imposing a particular religious view or ethical code on all individuals. It means recognizing that there are universal principles that can guide discussions about justice, equality, and the common good. It provides a basis for collective responsibility and encourages individuals to think beyond their personal preferences and to consider the broader implications of their actions.

Objective morality, when grounded in communal religion, ethics, or shared values, allows for a politics of reason and dialogue rather than one driven by ideological purity or personal preference. It reestablishes the notion that there is a right and wrong that exists beyond opinion, which serves as a stabilizing force in political discussions. By restoring these common moral frameworks, society can move away from the fragmentation created by relativism and work toward a more cohesive, just, and harmonious future.

In conclusion, the decline of political discussion in our current climate is a direct consequence of relativistic morality. As long as moral truths are viewed as subjective, political discourse will continue to devolve into adversarial battles over competing ideologies. The solution lies in embracing objective morality, which provides a common foundation for political debate and moral decision-making. Through communal religion, ethics, or shared values, we can restore a sense of collective responsibility and unity that transcends individual desires and promotes the greater good.