On Moral Humility

(Context: There is a kind of philosophy or personal belief that argues, in essence: "Who are we to say that something is right or wrong?" This philosophy goes by many names and manifests in various ways in many cultures. One of its labels is "moral humility", the idea that one who is humble is careful not to make absolute moral claims. And to be fair, there is some reasonable ground for such skepticism which I do not intend to diminish. However, taken to its more extreme conclusion, one finds a level of moral relativism that hurts more than it helps. It is this kind of "humility" that we consider here.)

    The moral humility of the relativist is admirable, but bland. This is where post-modernism and Christianity once again split on their definitions, and ultimately their realities. The moral humility of the relativist requires him to decline taking a side on any moral issue (until, of course, someone steals his silverware). But in his efforts to avoid taking a side, he fails to take a stand of any kind, save indifference. For the sake of objectivity, he finds himself losing the object of his own convictions. In short, his moral humility strips him of his own moral authority.

    The personality of Christianity stands in stark contrast. Compared to the modern man, Christ may be accused as the most arrogant, moralistic man in history. Truly, nothing is more conceited than claiming Godhood, and with it the right to define morality. By default, Christ took a moral side, something the post-modernist is careful not to do. But I would also argue that the figure of Christ, while taking a moral stand without hesitation, is actually also the perfect model for moral humility--and it comes down to our understanding of humility.

    A common understanding of humility is the awareness and acknowledgement that one may be wrong, and the willingness to learn. While not untrue, it is incomplete, for there is a difference between seeking growth and lacking conviction. True moral humility strives for the development of a moral framework and knows, when having encountered the truth, when to plant the flag. The flagbearer may not be called humble because he chooses neither side of a battlefield but because he gives himself to the established values of the flag he bears.

    But let's continue considering humility. The difference between humility and conceitedness is not merely that of open-mindedness versus close-mindedness. That is too narrow an understanding. The difference is this, that one seeks itself and the other seeks beyond itself. For the conceited mind, all roads travel inward into itself; for the humble mind, all roads lead out of itself. One seeks to be fed and is never filled; the other seeks to feed another and is never empty. This is how Christ can make the most self-promoting statements and still be the epitome of humility. At the same time as being glorified above all, He turns around and says, "I can do nothing except what I see my Father doing."

    Thus, the morality of the relativist turns dull in contrast to that of the Christian. The former is unable to make any moral claim, and no wonder, as only he can be the anchor of his own morality. And what claim can one make based on oneself? The latter, however, can make the boldest of claims, as he is not his own witness: his affirmation comes from beyond himself.