Disconnected musings on postmodern moral relativism

Moral relativism is the position that moral propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths. It not only holds that ethical judgments emerge from social customs and personal preferences, but also that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth. Many relativists see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries. Some would even suggest that one person’s ethical judgments or acts cannot be judged by another, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.

Some moral relativists — for example, Jean-Paul Sartre — hold that a personal and subjective moral core lies at the foundation of our moral acts. They believe that public morality is a reflection of social convention, and that only personal, subjective morality is truly authentic.

Moral relativism is not the same as moral pluralism, which acknowledges the co-existence of opposing ideas and practices, but does not require that they be equally valid. Moral relativism, in contrast, contends that opposing moral positions have no truth value, and that there is no preferred standard of reference by which to judge them.

The above was Published in the Areopagus Journal 1/3 (July 2001): 30-35.

Just a fun quote: The Hindu philosopher Swami Vivekananda came to Chicago in 1893 to address the World’s Parliament of Religions. He told the delegates, “We [Hindus] accept all religions to be true,” and “[it] is sin to call a man [a sinner].”9

Now down to some serious rambling.

The less light one has, the less able they are to make fine distinctions; be it in color, form or individuality, all grows grey and indistinguishable. Light brings definiteness and thus definition. So it is Scripture concludes men apart from as plunged into darkness. Moral relativism cannot but be the result of a loss of light. So that one cannot separate between killing and murder; fornication and sexual love; lying and bearing false witness against one’s neighbor; having a heart of worship and Sabbatarianism; coveting and right desire etc.

Scripture alone gives us God’s dictates of right and wrong, objectively. Though we may still – in our sinfulness – apply those truths subjectively. We must always be on the watch, given our inborn propensity to challenge God’s place of defining right and wrong with a quest for human autonomy. If there is no objective standard, then there can be no “right” standard at all. While one may say: “what’s right for me is right for me and what’s right for you is right for you”, in the final analysis, it is both unlivable and unscriptural.

This lack of light (lets just call that light the whole counsel of Scripture as illumined by the Holy Spirit) shows itself differently in two distinct groups. For the Religious man, it will either show itself as doctrinal liberalism, or (more likely) strict legalism.

The legalist has no power of subtle distinction to interpret the letter of the law by the Spirit of holiness who gives the law. So, for the legalist the 4th commandment it taken in total isolation from its Israelite context and New Testament transitions and impacts. A day is a day, no matter when where or to whom. In one sense true, and in another, dreadfully lacking. Though without true Scriptural warrant he may concede a shift to Sunday, disregarding the OT command that it be the SEVENTH day – with no other provision given. Those who cannot deal with even that tension end up in smaller circles (7th Day Baptists for instance).

The doctrinal libertine can’t distinguish between murder and killing and relegates both to the dung heap. In this, he too disregards other Scripture and cannot distinguish the shades the Bible itself establishes. All killing has reference to sin, but not all killing is itself sinful.

In the irreligious man, it also divides into two streams but with differences. In the irreligious who have a strong sense of personal morality – their self-defined categories of right and wrong become cultural and political intolerance couched in liberalism. In the others, it devolves into utter relativism, with an attempt to deny any absolutes whatever.

In all of the above there is a consistent rejection of God’s ultimate authority through His Word illuminated by His Spirit. This is true even for the most legalistic of the religionists who falsely appeal to Scripture – but in fact are the ultimate judges of HOW God’s law is interpreted and carried out.

Also for all those we’ve discussed above, these two features govern: 1. Some respond to their lack of light and the ability to make proper and subtle distinctions by drawing arbitrary lines based upon too little information. 2. Others respond by refusing to draw any lines because they imagine no hard and fast boundaries at all.

Both err on precisely the same point.

To put anyone or anything in the place of God is always wrong. To give Him preeminence in all things is always right.

To misrepresent God so as to mislead any man from the truth of God is always wrong. To reveal Him in His glory is always right.

To take to oneself God’s name, as belonging to Him and bearing witness of Him when it is not so, is always wrong.

To make proper room to remember and worship the Creator as God and good in all His attributes is always right. To neglect to do so is always wrong.

To honor those God places in authority above us in so much as they neither prevent us from doing what God requires, nor require us to do what God forbids is always right. To fail to do so is always wrong.

To murder is always wrong. Killing will always be related to sin, but may not be sin itself.

To seek sexual gratification from someone else’s spouse is always wrong.

To seek gain by virtue of what does not belong to me and preventing the rightful owner his rights over it is always wrong.

To prevent or pervert the truth so as to harm my neighbor is always wrong.

To desire what belongs to others so as to wish it were mine and not theirs is always wrong.

To love the Lord our God with all our heart and mind and soul and strength is at all times and in all places for all people – right. To not so love Him, is wrong. Always.

To love mankind as we love ourselves – to always act in other’s best interest before God is always right. To neglect to do so is always wrong.

Whew – got that off my chest. I feel better now.