Moral Relativism and the Laws of a Nation
February 25th, 2008 at 10:20 pm (False Religions)
Scott Klusendorf articulates three objections to demonstrate that moral relativism is flawed. 1) It is self-refuting. That is to say that it cannot live within its own rules. Relativists are fond of stating that “There are no absolutes”, yet they do not see the irony of making an absolute statement that just refuted itself. There is no moral neutrality. If relativism says it is wrong to force one’s absolute beliefs on another, is that an absolute belief? A person who is pro-abortion might say that it’s wrong for a Christian who believes abortion is murder to try to force their opinion on them. Within that argument the pro-abortion person is forcing their opinion on the Christian who is pro-life.
2) It is impossible for a consistent moral relativist to say anything is wrong, including intolerance. If all morals are relative, then who is to say that hatred or intolerance or bigotry is wrong. Perhaps these values are righteous in a certain culture. Who is to say that torturing babies for fun is evil? Perhaps it is culturally acceptable. I believe that every rational person would have to agree that it is wrong to torture babies for fun. The reason is because God has written His law on every person’s heart.
Romans 2:14-16 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. NASB (emphasis mine)
3) It is practically impossible to live out life as a moral relativist. As C.S. Lewis points out, a person who claims there is no objective morality will complain if you break a promise or cut in line. If you steal their car, they will protest loudly. But the thief could simply respond, “Who are you to judge me and say what I believe is right is wrong?” Clearly a moral relativist will be seen to have a double standard in real life. For all its cries for tolerance, in the end the relativist is not tolerant of some other’s views.
In essence, if there are no objective moral rules, there can be no rule that requires tolerance as a moral principle meant to apply equally to all. In fact, if there are no moral absolutes, that seems like a good reason not to be tolerant at all. Why not force my morality on others if it’s in my own self-interest and my personal ethics allow it? The fact is that there exists no morally neutral ground. Everybody has a point of view they think is right and everybody judges at some point or another. The Christian gets pigeon-holed as the judgmental one, but everyone else is judging, too. It’s an inescapable consequence of believing in any kind of morality.
In contrast to the professed moral relativists, the Biblical Christian believes in absolutes because the Bible says that God is the Creator of the universe and thus the owner of mankind so He sets the rules for what is right and wrong (good and evil). God has placed on the heart of every individual His absolute standard which is His moral law, the Ten Commandments. He has accomplished this in the form of the conscience. An individual can choose to listen to his/her conscience or ignore it. Whether an individual believes certain actions to be acceptable or not is irrelevant. Sins like lying, stealing, adultery, murder, blasphemy, etc. are wrong because God said so in His Word ( Exodus 20).
Everyone believes in some form of truth but their definitions are vastly different. For example, the Christian’s foundation is rooted in God’s absolute truth revealed in His Word, the Bible. God’s absolute truth is a foundation, an immovable point of reference. Since His truth never changes, right and wrong, good and evil can be determined from it. Those who rebel against God’s truth may be able to live with themselves for a while, but ultimately total autonomy cannot be lived with impunity. God calls us to an absolute moral law that is not only good by definition, but is good for us. God does not take pleasure in punishing unrepentant sinners who rebel against His law order, but ultimately He will meet out punishment because of His commitment to justice. We can see the heart of God in 2 Peter 3:9 where He states, “God is patient toward you, not desiring that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”
Take for instance the cases of slavery in America and prohibition. First of all, we must realize that all laws are moral. A law states what should be legal or illegal. As soon as you use the word should you are in the realm of morality. A law against rape is a moral law. A law that allows murder of unborn babies is a moral law. A stop sign is moral in that it is pushing someone’s or some government’s morality upon it’s citizens. The stop sign is telling us of the authority’s value or morality concerning order and safety (not all societies have stop signs).
Therefore a law for slavery is a moral law and a law against slavery is a moral law. The question becomes whose morality should legislators choose? This is where the value of the Biblical ethic shows itself strong. Society’s lawmakers need not go back and forth between one individual’s moral theory and another’s moral theory. Nor need a culture be ruled by only the strong and oppress the weak. Nor need a society be fearful of a simply majority rule declaring what is right and wrong. When a culture’s foundation is the word of God, then we see that might does not make right. The Creator God is the one who declares what is right and what is wrong. Because God is a good God, His laws are not burdensome for those who submit to His Lordship.
When Biblical morality influences a nation’s laws, we see that there need not be a law against drinking alcohol, as the Bible clearly shows godly people, including Jesus Himself, drinking alcohol. At the same time, there will be laws against being drunk as the Bible clearly states that to be drunk is a sin (many states have laws concerning being drunk in public). The reason why America has laws against murder is because of its Christian background. Murder is a sin in the Bible. The nation of Germany during the time of the Nazis did not have laws against murdering 6 million Jews. Ultimately morals will either come from the One who created man or man himself. Biblical principles must be the foundation of a country’s foundation and it’s laws. If a country were to be founded on moral relativism, chaos, anarchy, oppression and a host of other evils would result because there would be no absolute standard to appeal to. Everyone would be able to do what is right in his own eyes, rather than submitting to the Lordship of Jesus as the Creator and therefore the one who determines right from wrong.
Blogged with Flock
:
