If God Is "I AM", then Who Am I/ - Day 18

Day 18 – moral (II)

We ourselves do not always know what is right, what is just and fair. At times we agonize over decisions having moral overtones. “What is the right thing to do?” we ask. God, of course, never faces this predicament. His perfect knowledge precludes any uncertainty on what is right and wrong.  –JERRY BRIDGES

Yesterday we described ourselves as moral beings, created with an awareness of right versus wrong and an innate sense that we should choose the right over the wrong. We declared our moral nature to be God-given, derived from the absolute moral purity of the Righteous and Holy One. God wrote on our hearts the Moral Law and placed within us the sense that we should obey it.

Moral relativists, however, disagree. They state plainly that there are no moral absolutes, that nothing is absolutely right or wrong. Perhaps the best way to understand their argument is to look at their response when confronted with the Ten Commandments.

Commandment: Thou shalt not kill.

Relativist: We all know that there are exceptions to this rule. We send troops to foreign lands and propel bombs toward specific targets with the expressed intention to kill, and no one seems to think this is wrong. We execute criminals every month and do so under the law. In fact, to refuse to kill the enemy or the inmate is considered the wrong thing to do. Therefore, "Thou shalt not kill" is relative, not absolute.

 

Commandment: Thou shalt not steal.

Relativist: What about stealing secrets from terrorists to protect our national security? What about the Department of Human Resources taking a baby from negligent parents without their consent?                 What about stealing the get-away car of bank robbers to aid in their capture? This is right, not wrong. Therefore, "Thou shalt not steal" is relative, not absolute.

 

Commandment: Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Relativist: Imagine that you are a mother whose three children have been taken hostage by a gunman. The kidnapper tells you he will release the kids unharmed if you have sexual intercourse with him. If not, he will kill all three. What would you do? Isn't this evidence that "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is relative, not absolute?

 

Commandment: Honor thy father and mother.

Relativist: Sometimes it is best to go against your parents, especially when they encourage you to act selfishly and irresponsibly. "Honor thy father and mother" is relative, not absolute.

 

Commandment: Thou shalt not covet.

Relativist: Certainly, you shouldn't covet your neighbor's wife, but you'd be better off if you coveted (and copied) his good work ethic, personal fitness, and benevolent disposition. "Thou shalt not covet" is relative, not absolute.

The mantra of moral relativists is, “A given action always has an acceptable situation.” That's why the term situation ethics is synonymous with relativism. In a real world with real situations, they argue, there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong.

I tend to agree with the moral relativist to a certain point. I believe that morality, indeed, is often situational. But I disagree that it is always so. My mantra is, “A given situation often has an unacceptable action.” You and I can easily come up with instances where killing, stealing, committing adultery, and coveting are absolutely wrong. What about those white supremacists who killed a Latino youth simply because of the color of his skin? What about the corporate executive who greedily stole millions of dollars from his company's shareholders by falsifying annual reports? What about that scam artist who depleted the retirement savings of hundreds of elderly couples? What about the adulterous minister who recently solicited a male prostitute to satisfy his sexual appetite? What about Susan Smith drowning her children in an attempt to preserve an extramarital affair? We all know that these actions are wrong and that, given the situation, they are absolutely wrong.

Another way to try to explain away morality is to attribute it to our natural instincts. A dog protecting her master or nurturing her puppies may appear to be doing what's right, but she is acting only on biological impulses. Similarly, say moral biologists, we humans could be acting instinctively instead of morally. If this is true, no God-given Moral Law exists.

Once again, this view is too simple and one-sided. Dogs and cats never go against their instincts. Humans, on the other hand, buck these biological urges every day for selfish gain. Mothers and fathers ignore their parental instinct and neglect their offspring, temperamental teenagers refuse to eat in order to get their way, and depressed patients forfeit perhaps life's most basic instinct—the will to live—by committing suicide. If human actions were merely biological, driven by instincts, this would not happen. The fact that we often disregard our instincts is evidence enough that something more than instincts is at work inside us. There is within us a Moral Law and a moral choice, both God-given.

In summary, some aspects of ethics are indeed situation-dependent, but morality also has a firm, unyielding, uncompromising side to it. Moral absolutes do exist.

 

SELF-REFLECT

1. Think of three situations in your life where

     you knew the right thing to do and did it.

2. Think of three situations where you knew
     the right thing to do and did not do it.

3. Determine now to do what God wants,
     regardless of the situation. Ask Him to
     help you know what is right when things
     are uncertain.
    

Daily Quotation

Jerry Bridges, The Pursuit of Holiness (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 2006), 24.