Current Contemplations: Moral Relativism in Children's Programmes

Lately I've been thinking a lot about Moral Relativism - specifically moral relativism in children's programmes.

The online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines "Moral Relativism" as:

Moral relativism is an important topic in metaethics. It is also widely discussed outside philosophy (for example, by political and religious leaders), and it is controversial among philosophers and nonphilosophers alike. This is perhaps not surprising in view of recent evidence that people's intuitions about moral relativism vary widely. Though many philosophers are quite critical of moral relativism, there are several contemporary philosophers who defend forms of it. These include such prominent figures as Gilbert Harman, Jesse J. Prinz, J. David Velleman and David B. Wong. The term ‘moral relativism’ is understood in a variety of ways. Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons. Sometimes ‘moral relativism’ is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them. (x)

And indeed, I am thinking of this general definition that Stanford has laid out when I consider "Moral Relativism".  In layman's terms, that absolute moral judgements (ie if something is objectively "good" or "bad") don't exist.  Instead, what is defined as "moral" ("good/"bad"/etc.) is relative or, it depends upon a subjective perspective when comparing groups of people/individuals.  For instance, the concept of capitalism could be thought as a public "good" in the United States, but "bad" in China.

With this definition in mind, it is obvious that most Christians fundamentally disagree with moral relativism.  There is an objective standard with which to measure the "goodness" or "wickedness" of one's actions - that of God's commands.  And, unsurprisingly, moral relativism is also at odds with other major religions as well like Judaism and Islam.

But although I do not agree that moral relativism is an accurate way to depict the world when taken to the fullest extent of it's meaning, I think that it can still be - and should be - implemented effectively into children's programmes.  The two best examples that I've watched recently that would advocate for this position are in "A Series of Unfortunate Events" and "Gravity Falls".

In "A Series of Unfortunate Events", the idea of moral relativism is manifested by the 7th book, in which the Baudelaire orphans are challenged with their first "moral dilemma".  They are asked to break the innocent Jacques Snicket out of jail in order to save him from a death sentence he doesn't deserve.  The Baudelaires know that breaking someone out of jail is against the rules of the town, but because Jacques is not actually guilty of any crimes, they decide that it is okay to save an innocent man.  As the series progresses, the Baudelaires decide to steal from a man who gave them nothing but trust, to run away from law officials, and to join the wicked Count Olaf's acting troupe, to list but a few morally questionable acts they do in order survive, find out answers to a mystery they are pulled into, and in order to pursue the "greater good".

Throughout the series, the idea that "good" and "evil" exist are not questioned.  It is the introduction of Life (with a capital "L") that makes the distinction between the two more difficult and complex to answer.  For instance, as the series progresses, the fact that Count Olaf is the "villain" never changes.  However, the Baudelaires' perception of him as a two-dimensional villain does.  It is revealed throughout the story that Count Olaf may have become an orphan himself due to the actions of the Baudelaire parents, at one point he was on the "fire fighting" instead of "fire starting" side of the secret organization, and at the end of his life he did at least one last good act by helping his former love interest, Kit Snicket, deliver her child.  Meanwhile, the Baudelaires themselves go from children who simply follow the word and direction of the adults put in charge of their well-being to thinking for themselves and having more agency in their lives as previously stated.

In short, I think it is good for children not to think of morality as purely relative, but it is important for them to understand that most people are not fully good or fully evil due to a simple, two-dimensional picture of their character.  Other people are three-dimensional, just like yourself, and understanding that people have both good and bad things in their past is a foundational part of any child's development.

Actions and choices taken in free will can be determining factors in labeling an individual as a "good" or "bad" person.  And most people rarely commit knowingly "bad" actions.  I agree that people generally tend to do what they think is right based upon a variety of factors (cultural, socio-economic, religious backgrounds, etc).  However, the idea that these actions will never be able to have a common rubric with which to be measured against is where I think the idea of relativism goes too far.

I think this is perfectly demonstrated in "Gravity Falls", in which moral relativism is cheekily referenced in-show multiple times.  However, the larger, over-arching themes of the show prove that relativism can be held in check with a solidly Christian message underneath.  (Note: The creators of "Gravity Falls" are definitely not religious - I believe Alex Hirsch, the mastermind behind the series, is actually an atheist.  Rather, as a Christian viewer I have detected Christian thematic elements that are evident in the series).

Throughout the show the development of the main characters, but in particular Stanley and Stanford Pines, utilizes moral relativism to its advantage.  Throughout the show characters try to do the right thing in tough situations with the information they have.  And once again this adds a level of realism and complexity to each of the protagonists.

It is exactly this which allows characters like Grunkle Stan to be a liar, thief, and a criminal, but at the same time be heroic and honourable.  His deep love of money, it is later revealed, comes from a traumatic incident in which he was kicked out of his home/family due to "costing the family millions".  As a result, his quest for money stems from the fact that he wants to be reconciled with his family, and his love of money comes from his love for family.  Although this does not excuse the crimes he committed in the past, it does allow the audience to gain deeper sympathy and appreciation for his character.  It also allows for his character to develop from a grifter/swindler to someone who uses his con-man skill set to trick the villain of the series and defeat him, thereby subverting his dishonourable lifestyle to an ultimately honourable act.

Essentially, the show continually uses this concept of moral relativism, where acts of vandalism, lying, stealing, etc. that are usually considered "bad" are eventually subverted into resourcefulness which allows the characters to vanquish over evil.  It is what allows for reconciliation and ultimate self-sacrificial love to triumph in the face of a demonic triangle, and for that I think it shows that moral relativism, as it introduces complexity/relatability into the narrative and characters, is important for children to be exposed to, while at the same time it is not completely incompatible with objective Christian themes of "goodness" like forgiveness, reconciliation, and self-sacrificial love.

Not to mention it makes for one hellavua punch-line.