Relativism 2.0: More Dizzying than I Realized
I agreed with her. That made her angry.
When a student at Ohio University (Athens, OH) called pictures of abortion “obscene violence involving a minor,” I couldn’t help but agree.
Wrong move. She’d just stormed off, demanding we remove our signs, but after hearing my assertion that she was right—that abortion is indeed obscene violence involving a minor—she charged back shouting, “No! No! No!”
I guess I wasn’t allowed to agree with her?
The rules of moral relativism used to dictate that we accept everyone’s point of view. But now I was being scolded because I had accepted her position.
It was a dizzying experience rivaling even The Princess Bride’s infamous Vizzini.
Classic Move Gone Wrong
Before it went off the rails, her strategy had been rather clever. A classic debate move is to understand your opponent’s position (even better than they do), and then demonstrate how even their own position should lead them to your conclusion rather than theirs.
For example, many say abortion is necessary to avoid child abuse. Kids who are unwanted are doomed to face the balled fists and verbal tirades of exasperated adults. Rather than just responding, “Future abuse doesn’t justify killing babies,” the artful defender of preborn people will say something like:
You’re against abusing kids. Me, too!
We both know, then, that one thing that is wrong for everyone is to purposefully harm innocent, young members of the human family. So we agree—and that’s why I’m against abortion. Like you, I oppose violence committed on young members of our family. But I don’t limit that to those children who, like me, are born. I extend it to all young humans, including those too young to be born.
What about you? If you’re truly against abusing kids, shouldn’t that include dismembering kids too young to be born?
The OU student had taken a page from this book. She saw Created Equal with our signs of abortion victims and asked herself, “How can I show them that their own position ought to make them remove their signs?”
And she thought she’d landed on the right answer: laws condemning public distribution of obscene materials involving minors. After all, we’re claiming preborn babies are minors. Our signs drip with the blood of abhorrent violence. So if we really believe it’s violence, shouldn’t we follow the law and take down the signs?
She wasn’t alone in thinking she’d landed on the trump card. Listen to throngs celebrate when she reads the Ohio law.
Miley Cyrus Explains it All
But her core assertion was too good. Of course our signs show violence involving a minor. I could do nothing but agree, which brought her back for tantrum 2.0.
Why? Why was she so angered by my agreement?
Sometime after Miley Cyrus began donning the yellow Hannah Montana wig, but before she lit fire to all rules of decency, she ascended the charts with a song appropriately titled “The Climb.” Among philosophical nuggets embedded in the lyrics, Cyrus croones,
Ain’t about how fast I get there.
Ain’t about what’s waitin’ on the other side.
It’s the climb.
The implication is clear. What matters is not where you’re going but how you get there. (Cyrus might change her tune if waiting on the other side were a pack of wolves or the Gaither Vocal Band launching another chorus—not sure which she’d find more frightening. But that’s another topic for another blog.)
When the student shouted, “No! No! No!” to my agreement, I asked for clarification: “I’m sorry. I thought you did find our signs obscene. Do you not?”
She then got to the heart of the problem. She again emphasized that they’re obscene—even calling our signs “materials with obscene violence and cruelty”—but she said: “They’re obscene under our rules, but they’re also obscene under your rules.”
What mattered, then, according to her was not the conclusion—that abortion is obscene violence. Rather, it was all about the climb, how you got there.
In other words, it wasn’t enough for me to agree with her idea. I had to agree with how she got there.
That’s truly Relativism 2.0. Don’t just agree with me. Agree with every step I take to get there.
Check it out in the rest of our interaction.
Back to Earth
The older I get, the more quickly I find myself dizzied when spinning my children in the air. The only solution when the vision blurs and head turns fuzzy is to pause for a moment to allow everything to recalibrate. This, I think, must be our answer with the dizzying effects of Relativism 2.0, as well.
My emphatic agreement with the student did not change her mind on abortion, at least not in the moment. Perhaps this is because, while I did agree with her that abortion is violence, I could not assent to the idea that images of it must therefore be censored. But even she, I think, would admit this is a silly notion. It would demand condemning human rights defenders like Lewis Hine with his photographic fight to protect children from dangerous labor.
Here’s what I think was going on: She was ensnared by her own frenzy and could not see clearly, just as my vision blurs while twirling my toddler in my arms. Only after I sit for a moment and clear my head can I perceive reality rightly.
This is why we should never be alarmed when angry abortion advocates refuse to acknowledge truth while speaking with us. There’s a lot going on emotionally and physiologically within that can blind them to what is true.
But eventually, we all must come back to earth. The dizzying fades. Our heads and hearts recalibrate. When that happens, the truth we’ve seen and heard will plague our vision and ring in our ears.
When that happens for this student, she’ll remember the pictures and my insistence that she is right—that abortion is indeed violence.
This will either change or haunt her. The choice is hers.