The stench of moral relativism

Moral Relativism - What's It All About?

Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it." So if I feel that I would like to break into your house, murder your children, and enslave your wife it is ok. Sure I would have broken a few civil laws along the way--but morality would be simply what I believe it to be for myself. Your truth is yours mine is mine.

Moral Relativism -- Is It Really Neutral?

Moral relativism has steadily been accepted as the primary moral philosophy of modern society, a culture that was previously governed by a--- "Judeo-Christian" view of morality. While these "Judeo-Christian" standards continue to be the foundation for civil law-- most people hold to the concept that right or wrong are not absolutes-- but can be determined by each individual. Morals and ethics can be altered from one situation, person, or circumstance to the next. Essentially, moral relativism says that anything goes, because life is ultimately without meaning. Words like "ought" and "should"-- are rendered meaningless. In this way-- moral relativism makes the claim that it is morally neutral.And so chaos begins. We throw out our inherant natural law and create our own consciousness.

In describing her view on morality-- the President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America once stated-- "teaching morality doesn't mean imposing my moral values on others. It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do -- and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves." She claims to be morally neutral, yet her message is clearly intended to influence the thinking of others… an intention that is not, in fact, neutral. And thus we have the Dover Intelligent Design case being actually a struggle by teachers to influence the thoughts and ideals of their students along evolutionary reasoning--.

Evidence that moral relativism is seen as more "fair" or "neutral"-- than a "hardline" stance on morality is seen in a 2002 column from Fox News analyst Bill O'Reilly-- who asked-- "Why is it wrong to be right?" In his article, O'Reilly cites recent Zogby poll findings regarding what is being taught in American universities. Studies indicate -- 75% of American college professors currently teach that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Rather, they treat the questions of good and evil as relative to "individual values and cultural diversity." The problem with this, according to O'Reilly, is that "they see the world not as it is, but as they want it to be. And annoying questions about moral absolutes and unacceptable behavior are usually left unanswered."

So if thre quarters of our professors truly believe that, then if the Nazi's re-imerged and di infact take over the world--then their cultural affects would be ok because it ties in with "cultural diversity". I suppose also if pirates took over a community-and set up a heathen society where rape and pillage was normal--then the weak among us would simply have to make do. Since there is no right ot wrong involved--it becomes survival of the fittest.

Moral Relativism -- Where Do You Stand?

Moral Relativism is a worldview. To determine for yourself which position to hold where morality is concerned -- you must first determine what you believe about the origin of life. Do you believe life evolved or do you believe life was created? Evolution and moral relativism go hand-in-hand -- for evolution teaches that life is accidental -- without meaning or purpose. Therefore -- anything you do is OK -- because it ultimately doesn't matter. If you believe we are created, however -- moral relativism cannot work. Creation implies a Creator. All things created are subject to a set of laws -- whether natural or divine. Moral relativism says anything goes --ut does it? Is it better to torture a child -- or to hug that child?

C.S. Lewis points to the nature of most quarrels as a clue to what we truly believe. Inherent in those quarrels is a concept of fairness -- as in "how would you like it if someone did that to you?" When we make that statement, we are appealing "to some kind of standard of behavior [we] expect" the other person to know about. Where do you think that standard originates? The pirates didn't bring it with them!!

In his September 19, 1796 Farewell Address to the nation, George Washington stated-- "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars." William McGuffey, author of the McGuffey's Readers, which were the mainstay of America's public school system from 1836 till the 1920's, wrote: "Erase all thought and fear of God from a community, and selfishness and sensuality would absorb the whole man." Where do you think the world is heading today?

I'm "relativley speaking" engaged in several conversations involving Intelligent design, atheism, marriage --all im prtant conversations regarding humanity our origin, and the institutions within. I believe there is a "GOD", that he designed us to have a set of natural laws and conscience, that he provided us with written and oral teachings to help keep us within the bounds of those natural laws, and that he provided for instituions such as marriage for procreation and companionship. All of this in an orderly fashion that just--makes--sense.

I can smell the rotting bodies that those pirates would leave behind in the name of moral relativism. And the stench I hope will bring those professors back to theior senses.