Moral Relativism versus Truth

Portrait of Thomas Jefferson by Rembrandt Peale, 1805. New-York Historical Society. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We have grown up with the axiom, “What is good for the goose is good for the gander.” Meaning, there is a guiding morality that should govern society. During the last several decades there has been a growing movement in liberal thinking that morality is relative. If a behavior is accepted in one culture, then it should be tolerated by our culture. This is not only true among cultures, but liberals and progressives have expanded this thinking down to the family unit and the individual. The moral code of our society has been turned upside down from having absolute Truth to each individual finding truth within him or herself.

Most members of the scientific community believe that the universe has laws that it must follow. They also believe in Occam’s Razor, the simple solution is probably the right one. However, when it comes to morality, members of the progressive movement want to say that there is no overarching morality which should govern human behavior. This philosophy has been pervasive in the last three decades where the attitude has been “if it feels good, do it.” People have not been encouraged to judge behavior based on right and wrong but on whether it feels right or wrong.

Because of this flip-flop in moral thinking, many good people have found it necessary to justify their behavior and the behavior of others. Rather than using Truth and Right as their measuring stick, they grade behavior on whether it feels good or is acceptable to the person participating in immoral behavior. A situation may arise in their family that they know is wrong and sinful. However, today’s society requires them to justify the sinful behavior because society now requires us to “tolerate” it. If this behavior is not tolerated, then the participant in the sin may get his or her feelings hurt or be caused to feel bad about himself or herself.

What is Truth and Right? Truth can be found in the moral structure of man from the Code of Hammurabi to the Ten Commandments to the Declaration of Independence. Judeo-Christian tradition holds that humanity should treat others the way they want to be treated and live a life that strives to be pure and holy. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the words that humans have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, happiness was not defined as “if it feels good, do it.” Jefferson’s definition of happiness was the agreeable sensations which spring from the enjoyment of good; that state of a being in which his desires are gratified, by the enjoyment of pleasure without pain; felicity; but happiness usually expresses less than felicity, and felicity less than bliss. So what then is the enjoyment of good? Jefferson’s definition of good was valid; legally firm; not weak or defective; having strength adequate to its support; as a good title; a good deed; a good claim. Another definition for good in the eighteenth century was having moral qualities best adapted to its design and use, or the qualities which God’s law requires; virtuous; pious; religious; applied to persons, and opposed to bad, vicious, wicked, evil.

The enjoyment of good meant following a good life under the guidance of Judeo-Christian values which are found in the Bible and the Torah. The pursuit of happiness, therefore, is not pursuit of immoral behavior, but a life that God would have us live. Liberty and freedom are to be enjoyed within a moral framework.

Under moral relativism there is no sin. Since we all live by our own individual moral code, one’s moral individualism is no better than another’s, unless of course, you adhere to Judeo-Christian values, then you are intolerant and judgmental. Here are some examples of moral relativism from recent events in the United States: same-sex marriage, Casey Anthony, and Sharia Law. Progressives would ask, “Whom does this hurt? No one outside these situations is affected by what these people do.”

Same-sex marriage confuses children as to the proper relationships between the sexes. Natural law states that the proper sexual relationship is between a man and a woman. The jury in the Casey Anthony trial was convinced that this dysfunctional family unit caused Casey to lie about where her daughter was for six months while she lived it up at bars. Now no one will know what happened to Kaylee because Casey lied about where she was. Sharia law has been used to decide court cases rather than using statutes of state and federal government between two Muslims. This sets a disturbing precedent because it opens the door for Sharia to be used to adjudicate cases between Muslims and Christians. Sharia also considers female circumcision, honor killings of girls, and marrying young girls to old men against their will to be lawful. Immorality reaches beyond the sins of individuals because sin affects everyone.

If moral relativism continues to be tolerated, society will decay into anarchy. We have seen examples of this with the Occupy Wall Street protests. Protesters are breaking municipal laws. Law enforcement is not enforcing the laws. Progressive government leaders at all levels are siding with the protesters. One must ask, “Where will it end?” Their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble ended when the assembly stopped being peaceful. Vandalism, public sex, and public excretion are not peaceful.

I pray that our society has people in it who are willing to stand for what is True and Right. We as individuals need to make our hearts right with God. We must repent of our sins. We must also judge others based on their fruit. If they call themselves Christians, we are called to guide them back to the Way. We must also live as an example to others to show that the way of Truth and Life is the Right one. We must live this way even if we are persecuted. We must live this way even if the persecution comes from our own families and friends.

Related articles

• What Is Cultural Relativism?. (greatriversofhope.wordpress.com)