Saw the guy on Fox News yesterday with Megyn Kelly-
His basic premise is that of so many today - laws and sociatal mores are situational. And today, what is right is wrong 6 months from now and so forth. Short term profits, short term laws, short term and so forth. It all fits.
My favorite line of his was that the writers of the Constitution are not representative of our country today.
To which I say, “Well, duh!”
If he don like constipation, he can move to USSR, Kuba, Koooorea, Vinizuela paradize and mabeee be asspointed Kommieeesaaaar.
It always surprises me to hear people talk about the relativity of law or morals like that, as if they’ve unconvrred something. Forget the Constitution, forget Aristotle, even. Go back to the decalogue. What does it mean for adultery to be against the covenant? It was the olden days, so the rule must be absolute an unbending. But in order to apply it, you must inquirer into various things. The act itself, what it consists of. Who was involved, when and where. What their status was. How the community viewers them. And so on and so forth.
In other words, it was all situational, and the right and wrong of it relative to particular circumstances. It is possible to be more or less situational, I suppose, and for rules to be more or less flexible, wider or narrower in application. But all the guy you’re talking about, if I may be so bold to guess, was probably advocating is some different set of rules, maybe even stricter, with which to replace old ones.
Relativity is a much abused concept. I think back to Hamlet, where at some point he says they must have grounds more relative, meaning a stronger basis for believing. Protagoras and his “man is the measure” philosophy is much more what people mean by bad relativity, but it is not the real danger. I much rather fear bad morality than loose morality. Hardly anyone ever gets to Anything Goes, but that too is scary.