Important Matters: March 2008

Recently I had the pleasure of reading three articles (Philosophical Problems with Moral Relativism, Deconstructing Liberal Tolerance, Any Absolutes, Absolutely!) about ethics and morals in the context of our postmodern world. Below, I have provided a brief commentary on these articles.

Since these three articles provide much overlap in their principals, I chose to combine my commentary into a single train of thought.

Agreement

First of all, I agree that Christianity absolutely represents the standard upon which everything else is judged (refer to the references below for more study in Christian apologetics)^1,2,3.

Proponents of Moral Relativism (herein referred to as Relativists) convey their message with passivity using a technique of persuasion called “bait and switch”. Meaning, on the one hand, Relativists present the lofty claim that everyone’s ideas and beliefs have equal value and are due equal respect in public discourse. Yet orthodox Christian rhetoric is given no such veneration and is often ruled intolerant by public officials and media outlets.

Collectively, the articles provide a descent coverage for how Relativists are intolerant of those that make assertions in support of Christianity. The articles describe in detail the confusion that lies between the Relativists ears concerning tolerance. I concur that the problem of today is a misunderstanding of terms.

It used to be that the term tolerance suggested for a "Person B" to allow a "Person C" to exist in deference to "Person C's" belief system in spite of differences of beliefs. For example, Christians that live in San Francisco tolerate homosexuals insofar as Christians are not running around San Francisco exterminating homosexuals. By contrast, Hitler and his followers did not tolerate Jews in Europe and elsewhere around the world. Webster’s second meaning of the word seems to fit with, “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own”.

The issue is that Relativists equate Christian rhetoric with the absence of tolerance or intolerance. It is as if Christian rhetoric were a force that could control another’s behavior. The irony is that the Relativists are violating Christians from the First Amendment in the U.S. Bill Rights! It should be no surprise that Relativists would resist Christian thought. Indeed, the Bible says the gospel is foolishness to the unredeemed.⁴

Disagreement

I took little issue with these articles as they present a descent argument against the ideas of Moral Relativism of which I am adamantly opposed. One principle that I believe could have been conveyed better, as with many other writings, was in making the distinction between ethics and morals.

The primary difference between ethics and morals is that ethics is more abstract and appeals to a higher authority. Ethics is concerned with the oughtness of behavior. The root of the word ethics is the Greek word “ethos”. In the Greek, ethos is a technique used in debate that appeals to a higher authority to strengthen an argument. Alternatively, morals are concerned with social standards and codes, hence the phrase moral code. Something can be morally acceptable, yet ethically wrong.

For instance, it is morally acceptable in America for an unmarried couple to be sexually active. However, the Christian ethic, transcending time and culture, prohibits sex before marriage. Just because a society accepts a set of moral principles does not make it ethically right. In other words, ethics are about what people think is right. Morals are about actual behavior.

To expand on why it is important to make this distinction, we often hear the distinctively postmodern phrase, "be who you are". However, the problem with that statement is in what the grammar of the sentence is saying. The word "be" is normative; it is ethical; it is about oughtness. But the phrase "who you are" is descriptive; it is moral; it is about behavior. So essentially, the phrase, "be who you are" is asserting that people should determine their oughtness based on behavior.⁵ That my friend is a dangerous idea, given the track record of humanity that has been given over to act according to their own desires.

Instead of saying, "be who you are", a better mantra is, "be who God has called you to be". Because in being who God has called us to be, we are deriving our behavior from the Creator who is the author of righteousness. Therefore, I close with Galatians 5:13, which says, "For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another."