It is often said that every man has his price. In this age it seems that even moral absolutes have their price in the minds of many. Actions are viewed as morally wrong only until I decide that the action would have sufficient benefits for me. This is the moral relativism we have often heard our present and our previous Holy Fathers condemn. This approach to morality has led our society into actions many of us would never have imagined possible.
After the horrors of the Second World War, the conquering Allied nations adopted the Geneva Conventions enshrining the moral principle that it is never right to mentally or physically torture anyone for any reason. Principles such as these marked us with a moral stature befitting a great nation and placed significant pressure upon our enemies to do the same when they held our soldiers as prisoners. But the signers of the Geneva Convention didn't adopt this code for appearance sake or for merely utilitarian ends. We adopted the Geneva Conventions because they were morally right.
Another sad example of moral relativism has recently been in the news. President Obama has lifted the executive order that was in place restricting federal funds from being used in research upon living human beings at the embryonic stage of their lives. Many people, good people, who generally have a good moral compass, have lost their bearings on this one. The Nuremberg Code was developed relating to this issue. It stated, among other things that, "No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur…" (#5) The Code also asserted that no one should be the subject of such experiments without his or her free consent.
Now here we are, just half a century later, violating these basic principles in regard to our most innocent and voiceless members. Many proponents have raised the issue as to whether a human embryo is indeed a human being. We know that from the moment of fertilization a separate individual begins to exist whose development is dependent upon the mother only for a safe environment in which he or she can be nourished and grow. If a human embryo is not a human being at what point do we wave our magic wand and declare this new living being, to be human? And who other than God has the right to declare the developing child less than human or less worthy of the rights that we recognize for all other human beings?
Here is what the Church has to say on this matter: "From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. To this perpetual evidence…modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, the program is fixed as to what this living being will be: a man, this individual man with his individual characteristics already determined." (Declaration on Procured Abortion, 1974) What reasonable person can resist the logic of this explanation?
In a variant of relativism called "proportionalism" many argue that even if the embryo is a human being that he or she will die anyway. Why not use them for the great good of eradicating terrible diseases in others? That is an interesting argument. It was exactly the argument of Dr. Mengele, the Nazi doctor, who did such horrific experiments on Jewish people and others who were destined for the gas chambers. We ought not compound the moral evil of bringing to life human beings outside of the loving married embrace by then using them like they were some commodity for our death-dealing experimentation.
Umbilical cord blood, collected when the child is born, abundantly supplies stem cells that have already proven their great worth in treatments. Other technologies that would provide embryonic stem cells without creating and then killing an embryo are now being developed. Don't let the altruistic-sounding language fool you; many who are pushing this issue are not interested in a moral alternative. They don't want to be fettered by moral restraints. They want science cut loose from any moral bearings.
Such are the consequences of moral relativism. This nation was founded upon the conviction that every human being shares an equal human dignity, not because the state grants it, but because we have been endowed with this dignity by our Creator. Everyone used to know that the deliberate maiming or killing of anyone, except as an unintended consequence of self-defense, was always a terrible violation of this principle. When moral absolutes are sacrificed, no matter how good and urgent our intention may be, we all sacrifice our human dignity.