The case for moral absolutism

Although I might agree with Siegel's characterization of America's cultural conflict, I believe he is wrong in his characterization of Tolkien's work, and the intrinsic validity of moral relativism.

There is no moral relativism in "Rings." The villain is absolutely evil. No one stops to ponder the value of inter-species diversity, the cultural contributions of trolls, or the rich artistic heritage of ogres. Good and bad are as clearly defined as can be. No one questions who the real enemy is, or the costs of choosing not to fight him.

Mel Gibson would tell you that the Gospel message does represent an absolute truth. Certainly it is absolute in the sense that it is either true, or it is not. If it is not true, you must dismiss it as a fairy tale of no greater or lesser value than other myths and legends. If, however, it is true, it carries very profound implications with regard to the consequences of how you choose to live your life.

If God told us explicitly that thou shalt not commit adultery, do we toss this aside when modernity decides that adultery is a valid alternative lifestyle? Moral relativism would answer this with a resounding yes. Relativism can easily turn yesterday's perverse behavior into the norm.

I believe the case for moral absolutism is self-evident in that some behaviors and cultures are clearly better than others. I am sure the culture of the cannibals of New Guinea is profoundly fascinating, but I would not hesitate to make a value judgment between their culture and that of the good folks at The Boston Globe. For instance, I would not accept the cannibals' invitation to dinner.

C.C. HOLLEMAN

Carlisle