Moral Relativism

I'd like to kick the proverbial hornets nest and talk about moral relativism.
At a presentation to seniors at a Christian high school in Des Moines,
Gregory Koukl walked up to the chalkboard and wrote two sentences.

"All views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another."

"Jesus is the Messiah and Judaism is wrong for rejecting that."

Everyone nodded in agreement as he wrote the first sentence.
He could barely get finished writing the second, however, before hands flew up across the room.
"You can't say that," someone challenged, clearly annoyed.
"That's disrespectful. How would you like it if someone said you were wrong?"

Koukl responded, "In fact, that happens to me all the time, including right now with you.
But why should it bother me that someone thinks I'm wrong?"
"It's intolerant," the student replied.
Greg pointed at the board and said, "Is this a view, the idea that all views have equal merit
and none should be considered better than another?" They agreed.
Then he pointed at the second statement. "Is this a view?"

Slowly the point began to dawn on the class. They had been taken in by a modern trick
called 'tolerance'. All too often in the media I see Christians branded as narrow-minded,
egotistical, Bible-thumping, fundamentalist bigots.
Why? Because they deigned to carry an opinion not aligned with what our society
considers fair and in support of 'civil liberties'.

We'll save the discussion of what 'civil liberties',
or what the latest weekly definition of it even means, for another day.
The term civil liberties has been such a hot-button topic during the last few decades, that
to invoke its use during a political speech or rousing address by the media seems enough to
engender righteous fury and indignation in all listeners; inciting them into a frothing-at-the-mouth
frenzy of frenetic activity replete with pitchforks and flaming torches, ready to burn the
fundamentalist dogs from the midst of the congregation.

But the point of this essay is the concept of moral relativism.
Which is, at its core, that there are no such things as objective moral values; only subjective ones.

Why would Christians at large be dubbed racist, egotistical,
narrow-minded, judgmental, hypocritical, etc?
Because if you are truly a Christian, you must believe in objective moral truths.
But if you share your beliefs about these truths, you become intolerant and judgmental.
Now here I'd like you to make an important observation.

The words racist, egotistical, narrow-minded, judgmental, self-righteous, and so on
are not merely adjectives. They are themselves moral judgments.
Moral relativism is a self-defeating principle.
It makes a statement about morality, that there is no objective morality,
that itself is objective in nature, and therefore should be dismissed forthright
as hogwash.

Now, don't draw an erroneous conclusion and assume I'm saying that there is no
such thing as being overly judgmental.
I believe that holding a strong opinion or belief and vocalizing about it is fine.
It's when you abuse your position to physically or mentally abuse someone else, that
the problem enters.

J.P. Moreland wrote an excellent synopsis about how the definitions of a number of very
important things have changed in our culture within the last few years.

"Another modern trend is a change in what we mean by the good life.
From Old Testament times and ancient Greece until this century, the good life was widely
understood to mean a life of intellectual and moral virtue.
The good life is the life of ideal human functioning according to the nature that God Himself
gave to us...

...Happiness (Greek: eudaimonia) was understood as a life of virtue, and the successful person
was one who knew how to live life well according to what we are by nature due to the creative
design of God. When the Declaration of Independence says we are endowed by our Creator
with certain inalienable rights, among them the right to pursue happiness, it is referring to
virtue and character. So understand, happiness involves suffering, endurance, and patience
because these are important means to becoming a good person who lives the good life.

Freedom was traditionally understood as the power to do what one ought to do.
For example, some people are not free to play the piano or to say no to lust because they have not
undergone the training necessary to ingrain the relevant skillful habits.
Moreover, since community is possible only if people accept as true a shared vision of the good life,
it is easy to see why a sense of community and public virtue could be sustained given this understanding of the good life, happiness, and freedom.

Traditionally, tolerance of other viewpoints meant that even though I think those viewpoints
are dead wrong and will argue against them fervently, nevertheless, I will defend your right to argue
your own case. Just as importantly, I will treat you with respect as an image bearer of God,
even though your views are abhorrent to me.

Finally, while individual rights are important, they do not exhaust the moral life because virtue and duty are more central than rights to the moral life properly conceived."

These traditional views have been replaced with the following re-interpretations in our modern society.

The good life is the satisfaction of any pleasure or desire that someone freely chooses for oneself.
The successful person is one who has a life of pleasure and can obtain enough consumer goods to satisfy his or her desires.

Freedom is the right to do what you want, not the power to do what you, by nature, ought to.
Community gives way to individualism with the result that narcissism increases.
If you are free to create your own moral universe, and there is no right or wrong answer to
what you should do, then morality (or everything) exists to make you happy.
When a person considers a life-altering decision like abortion, or physician-assisted suicide,
the person's individual rights are all that matter. Questions about virtue or one's duty to the broader
community simply do not arise.

Tolerance has come to mean that no one is right and no one is wrong and, indeed, the very act
of stating that someone else's views are immoral or incorrect is now taken to be intolerant.
Once the existence of knowable truth in religion and ethics is denied, authority (the right to be
believed and obeyed) gives way to power (the ability to force compliance).

Why is the idea of moral relativism so dangerous? Because it has insidiously crept into our culture
and I have heard many Christians touting it as doctrine.

Ultimately, one can usually define the qualities of a moral principle by observing its champion.
If we agree that pacifism is a good moral principle, we can look at Ghandi and see the virtues it
brought forth in his life.
If we agree that selflessness is a good moral principle, we can examine mother Theresa and
see the virtues that being selfless brought about.

So who is the champion of moral relativism? Who espouses its characteristics completely?
A complete and utter sociopath does. Someone who does whatever is pleasing to them at the moment
without any concern for the subjective viewpoints of those around them.
So beware of allowing this seemingly innocent opinion take foothold in your mind.