by Jeffrey Stueber
A few short years ago, I finished a manuscript entitled Arguing with Abortion, Homosexuality, Evolution, and the New Age Movement and, although I felt earlier it would be a hot seller, I soon came to the realization a book written in the form of two people debating would not sell well. Conversations obviously bring with them several inherent problems conveying information - errors in memory or jargon, name calling, and so forth - and so I was content to abandon my manuscript to the internet for all to see. Books written in the form of people debating in real time with conversations made to portray real feelings and experiences just wouldn't sell, so I thought.
Then came Peter Kreeft whose refutation of relativism is just what I supposed could not exist. A Refutation of Moral Relativism is an interview of 'Isa Ben Adam - characterized by Kreeft as a forty-one-year-old Palestinian Arab who is professor of Philosophy at the American University in Beirut, Lebanon - by Libby (Liberty Rawls), a journalist who has been called "a classy, sassy Black feminist." 'Isa is the absolutist and in his place one could just as easily put Thomas Aquinas, Peter Kreeft, Richard Neuhaus, or for that matter Jeff Stueber. In Libby's place one could just as easily put Paul Kurtz, ace humanist, or Faye Wattleton of Planned Parenthood.
Libby is indeed "sassy" and pushes 'Isa to the limits after each argument or refutation he makes. After a brief introduction for us where the participants discuss what absolutism and relativism are and the importance of finding out which is true, Libby issues ten arguments for relativism and asks 'Isa to refute each one. That's what I call laying down the gauntlet and 'Isa is up to the challenge. Therein commences witty banter of the like displayed here:
'Isa: . . . You demand the right to be free to create your own values, right?
Libby: Right.
'Isa: Even me?
Libby: Oh, ye gods and goddesses, behold how far my justice and charity extend! Even to him. Yes, Professor, even to you.
'Isa: Then I claim that right. And the value system I freely choose to create is one where your opinions have no weight at all, because you are a woman.
Libby: Are you . . . are you serious?
'Isa: No, but suppose I were. What would you say? Or suppose I choose to create a value system in which I am God and rightly demand total obedience from you, who are not God. Is that OK with you?
'Isa is kidding, of course, and quick to put Libby on the defensive since it is appropriate for her to defend her relativism as well. Notice the biting sarcasm of Libby's - the assumption that 'Isa is a dogmatic stubborn fundamentalist who deserves shots like she delivers (Oh ye gods . . . Yes, Professor, even to you). Christians and Jews in Western society ("people of the Book") get a lot of that by humanists who claim they are freethinkers beyond such bigotry and stubbornness and 'Isa is skilled enough to show it is only the absolutists who can be rebellious against reigning orthodoxy because they alone can claim truth is on their side, that relativists are still prone to and driven to absolutism like ants to sugar, and absolutism is healthier because it keeps us from sins that may be harmful in the future.
Humorous encounters ensue as they do in any face-to-face interview/debate as when Libby recounts the Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey that each individual has a "fundamental right . . . to define the meaning of existence." 'Isa remarks, as if muttering to himself, "Yes, that's what they all say in hell." Libby is quick to pick this remark up and promptly asks 'Isa what he said, but 'Isa, by this time has shut up and continued his analysis of relativism. Of course, 'Isa didn't mean for Libby to hear this, but Kreeft did, which makes this occurrence all the more amusing. Actually exchanges like this in the midst of this interview, or debate if you will, are more like biting satire and are tantalizing like champagne bubbles on the tongue (if indeed an analogy could be drawn between consuming alcoholic beverages and reading philosophy).
My praise for Kreeft's book doesn't mean I agree with everything put in the words of 'Isa and Libby. 'Isa claims that the Dutch had a right to lie to the Nazis about their concealing of the Jews, an obligation even. Since lying is always wrong and this wasn't wrong, then it wasn't lying, so 'Isa claims. Lying is the deliberate misrepresentation of the truth and so it was lying, but it may not be wrong. Rather than following 'Isa's logic, I believe something J. Budziszewski has suggested: that different actions may be preferable or even an obligation depending on the circumstances. In this light, lying may be wrong but it may be an obligation when it produces the highest God-pleasing good. I could criticize Kreeft here for faulty logic, but maybe not. This may have actually been 'Isa's belief and not Kreeft's because Kreeft does tell us Libby and 'Isa are real people and this was a real interview taped years ago.
Still, I can't help heaping ample praise on this book because 'Isa refutes probably every argument for relativism such as arguments from social conditioning, evolution, cultural relativity, and others. It's not overly technical; it's probably something the local village idiot could read. Or perhaps it's just the thing to suggest to your agnostic relativist friend when asked for your best defense of absolutism - and a good book to curl up with on a weekend.