Can Moral Relativists Be Good?

This question comes up now and then -- usually about atheists, but it is their moral relativism that makes the question interesting.  At any rate, the answers tend to be a bit too glib.

Let me start by saying that by "being good" I do not mean by the standards of Mark 10:18, which would guarantee an answer of "no".  Nor am I asking if they still bear the image of God (though no longer the likeness) and are valued by God; this question would guarantee an answer of "yes".  I mean, can they behave well by human standards?  Oh, and just because some choose not to does not mean they could not have.

It's worth adding that even by human standards, we are a species of stinkers.  Nothing drives this home so forcefully as a daily examination of conscience.  As Hilaire Belloc said, we

... pretty nearly all day long
Are doing something rather wrong.

The ancient Greeks knew this, which is why we have the story of Diogenes carrying a lit lamp during the day to look for an honest man.  If the question is to be interesting, we can't set the bar very high.

We do need to set it high enough, though, that "being good" is inconvenient.  It is only through some degree of sacrifice that we can be sure there is real commitment.

Now imagine that you have a friend who insists, loudly and frequently, that Napoleon never existed at all, being entirely a fiction created by the British and Russian ruling classes to keep their populations awed and subjugated.  In spite of that, this friend insists on dressing and acting like Napoleon.  He persists in this behavior even though it has cost him friends and job opportunities.  If anyone says he does not really look like Napoleon, he becomes angry -- almost as angry as he becomes if anyone says there was a real Napoleon for him to look like.

This behavior is possible, but by no means rational.  Furthermore, when you say the friend "looks like Napoleon", you mean there was a real man whose appearance can be accurately determined (in spite of conflicting accounts) by careful research; all the friend can mean is that he looks like the popular image of Napoleon.

The point is, of course, that anyone who loudly insists that there is no real moral standard, but who nevertheless behaves as though it did, is not really behaving rationally, and he certainly is no judge of what good behavior really is.  Nevertheless, he may be better than his beliefs; many people are saved from being monsters by being slightly irrational.

What Does Atheism (Typically) Mean?

If "atheist" merely means someone who believes there is no Supreme Being, he might still believe in a whole hierarchy of spirits with different personalities and powers.  Buddhism is perhaps like this, as was early Greco-Roman paganism, though Hindu, Egyptian, and late Greco-Roman paganism see the many gods as manifestations or aspects of one Supreme Being.  In some beliefs, this Supreme Being is more personal, and in some less.

On the other hand, atheism can be defined not by the non-belief in powerful non-human beings, but in the non-belief in the right of these beings, by virtue of their very nature, to receive worship.

The claim that anyone or anything can have rights due to its nature alone, rather than based on his utilitarian value or his ability to punish or reward, is probably less popular today than it was in the ancient world, but it has not disappeared entirely.  Most people will agree that a child has a right to food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and even education, however inconvenient that might be and whether or not the person (or even society) supplying these benefits gets anything in return.  Most people think that each person has a right to a fair trial before punishment, a right not to be enslaved, etc.  There has always been a feeling that gods have a similar right to worship -- as distinct from human despots like those of the Kim dynasty in North Korea, who often demand worship.

It seems fair to say that modern atheism has more to do with the second point than with the first.  First of all, modern atheists are apt to think it likely that not only are there other intelligent beings in the universe, but that many of them may be so technologically advanced that they could do things that would seem completely impossible to us.  Secondly, atheists tend to believe that the ultimate Theory of Everything in physics is one, simple (in a sense), and beautiful (in a sense); Christians may agree, on the basis of God's creation reflecting God's nature, but atheists make the TOE into a kind of Ersatz God.  Christians say that God is uncreated and responsible for the reality of everything else; atheists say the TOE is uncreated and responsible for everything else.  Modern atheists basically acknowledge a pantheistic god who makes no moral demands, and they occasionally like to celebrate the glories of this god (like Carl Sagan did in the "Missa Gaia" in 1993) in quasi-religious ways, but truly and fundamentally they refuse to worship it.

No doubt there are some exceptions, but practically all modern atheists are moral relativists.  In other words, they would deny that conscience (contrary to, for example, Budziszewski) is a perception of an objective, external, non-physical reality.  On the contrary, they understand conscience as preferences based on (biological, not metaphysical) nature and nurture.  They might paraphrase Yoda:  "Do.  Or do not.  There is no good or evil."

The odd thing is that someone who truly embraces these ideas has no imperative to share them.  He might feel an irrational desire to share them, or he might share them in order to try to induce people to behave in a desired way.  Then again, he might find it more useful to pretend to be the prophet of a god in whom he does not believe.  Look at how many cults -- including cult-like organizations like the Legion of Christ under Marcial Maciel -- end up being schemes to provide the leaders with sex and money; is it really plausible that these leaders truly believe in God?  But if there really is no God and no real right or wrong, it is more rational to be a cult leader than to be an evangelist of atheism.

USA: Our Diversity Is Our Strength

Carthage:  Our diversity is our strength.
Rome:  Our unity is our strength.

1st Punic War:  Rome beats Carthage.
2nd Punic War:  Rome breaks Carthage.
3rd Punic War:  Rome destroys Carthage.

EDIT:  "Unity" was not exactly the right word for Rome; "cohesion" is more accurate, or perhaps "coherence".  Rome, and for that matter Alexander's Macedonians, had the cohesion and coherence that came from a shared culture and a shared identity.  Carthage and Persia, on the other hand, relied much more on adhesion and adherence.  Obviously those also worked well, or else we never would have heard of Carthage and Persia.  Adhesion and adherence, though, are much more likely to give way to the desertion and defection of whole groups of people, particularly in the tight spots when desertion or defection are most likely to be fatal.