Moral Relativism

Moral relativism is a shanda.  What often appears as, “You do what is right for you.  I will follow my conscience,” is pervasive in our era.  People can do their own thing as long as it does not affect anyone else.

This is a lie of terrible proportions that most of us have bought.  Everything that we do has an impact on someone and the world.   Nothing passes unnoticed or untouched.  Sometimes our actions affect our family, other times it changes opinions and attitudes. 

Take taxes, for example.  There are some who believe that pork barrel politicians fritter taxes away and we need to keep it out of their hands. The resulting theft, i.e. not reporting earned income, has the net effect of taking money out of someone else’s pocket.  Someone will suffer as a result.  Also affected at the same time, is the length we will then go to legitimize our action.  So for example, we may then tell Fred how outrageous it is that we are so unfairly taxed, thereby influencing Fred to consider following our actions.

“Where there is no God all is permitted,” wrote Dostoevsky.  Without belief in God and there are few absolutes. For example, why not committed adultery? If it harms no one who are you to tell me that I cannot do it? Or that it is morally wrong? If, as moral relativism holds, we are the final word on good and evil, then we are in the sorry state. Everyone has a different opinion on what is good and bad behavior. If left to the individual we will have 250,000,000+ modes of behavior in America. That seems to be where we are heading now.

A good example of moral relativism I bring for my home state of Massachusetts decades ago. There a vigorous debate was the headline grabber for almost a year.  At stake was mandatory seatbelt law. To pro-seat belt side demanded the law because it would save lives. The con-argument said that the law was an infringement upon people’s rights. They did not want anyone else telling them what to do.  During our time the same argument rages over the reckless distribution of firearms.

It is reasoned thought but wrong.

Laws regulate society. There are clear rights and wrongs, which need to be universally respected. To say, “I don't believe in not lying” or “the idea of the speed limit is idiotic” and then go out and do what we want is morally reprehensible.

Morality needs to be absolute.

In Alaska, the Eskimos used to leave their elderly to die when they became unproductive. Every Eskimo accepted that the grandparents would one day be cut loose but I’m ice floe. That they universally project practiced murder (call it euthanasia if you want) does not make it morally acceptable. It is still evil.

Who cares if you say, “That’s not right?” There is no moral outrage expressed; only a subtle cry that seems to me to be unacceptable.  It is still evil.

Who cares if you claim, “that’s not right?”  There is no moral outrage expressed, only a  subtle  cry “that seems an inappropriate thing to me.”  What powerlessness.

James Webb, a Vietnam veteran, wrote, “Mine has not been a generation that offered its children certainties.  We have treated them to endless argument instead….   Our children in many cases have grown up under false illusion that there are no firm principles, that for every case there is a counter case, for every reason to fight there is a reason to run.”

Acceptance of God and the mitzvot means believing in a wholesome, complete and enveloping morality.