What’s the Problem with Moral Relativism?
By Geoffrey Biddulph
Is all morality relative?
Modern society tells us yes. From same-sex marriage to abortion to “victimless crimes,” we are told that morality doesn’t matter, that nothing is based on timeless notions of right and wrong.
I debated same-sex marriage the other day (I am against it), and the crowd-pleasing line that my debating opponent came up with was, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” (Matt. 7:1). What he really meant was that all morality is relative – I have no right to judge the activities of others because I am an imperfect being as well. What right have I to judge whether homosexuals should get “married?” I can’t cast judgment on them.
Was my opponent correct?
Of course not. Of course we are meant to judge. We are meant to judge every day whether it is better and morally correct for us to go to work or sit at the beach. We are meant to judge whether it is right or wrong to get in fights with those around us, honk at people who take a millisecond too long to go at the red lights, argue with lazy postal clerks. We are supposed to judge whether it is wiser for our kids to hang out with the local drug dealer or with the straight-A students.
We are supposed to make moral judgments every second of the day. Do we go home early from work so we can spend time with our family, or do we stay to impress the boss? What do we look at and think about during the day? What are our plans for the future? Every single decision we make is about moral judgments.
It seems to me that the true meaning of Jesus’ message was not that we should never make judgments. If you read the rest of the quotation (“For by what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”) it seems that Jesus is talking about the need to avoid hypocrisy. The Joseph Smith Translation makes it clear that Jesus is talking about judging righteously, not to avoid judging at all.
For example, if I am guilty of adultery myself, I have no place to lecture anybody about sexual sin. In addition, the rest of the Sermon on the Mount makes it clear that we should recognize and disdain the sin but love the sinner. Why else would Jesus tell the people that “whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart?” (Matt. 5:28)
Jesus is clearly setting down strong moral rules that involve self-control and self-mastery. And we are expected to teach these moral rules: “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach (them), the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5:19).
So, clearly we’re supposed to go around telling people about the commandments of Jesus. And one of His clearest commandments is that people not commit adultery, control their lusts and learn to master their impulses. So, how is it “judgmental” to repeat that?
The world of moral relativism has truly pernicious results when it comes to governmental policy. Let me use just one small example involving an issue that has gotten almost no press attention to explain why.
The issue is human trafficking and slavery. Did you know that the government estimates that more than 14,500 new foreign victims of human trafficking and slavery are brought into the United States each year? These people, mostly teenage girls, are forced to come to the United States and work as prostitutes and sexual slaves.
During the 1990s, the number of people brought into the United States to work as sexual slaves for truly evil men increased. Why?
Because we began to see prostitution as a “victimless crime” and it became a lower priority for governmental agencies. The thinking was that most young women who were forced to come to the United States as sexual slaves had simply made a career choice. They were poor and uneducated and working as a prostitute was just one of many acceptable ways of earning a living, according to law enforcement thinking at the time.
Here’s what Lou de Baca, counsel for the criminal section of the civil-rights division of the Department of Justice, had to say: “We were trapped in a paradigm and not thinking; as a result we missed a lot of victims. It haunts us.”
Can you see where moral relativism takes you? If you are not judgmental, and there is no right and wrong, then there are no moral arguments against prostitution. Almost everybody is against slavery, but prostitution is simply something involving a sexual act that two consenting human beings have decided to do. There are no victims, therefore it is not a crime.
No victims? What about the 13-year-old girls forced into their situation and controlled by pimps? What about their parents on the other side of the world, wondering what happened to their child? What about the family members of the man involved?
And what about the greater costs to society? What if the girl becomes pregnant? What if either of them acquires a sexually transmitted disease? What if the business grows, causing other teenagers to be attracted to prostitution as a career choice? Many prostitutes end up using drugs, so what about the inevitable societal ills that come from increased drug use and trafficking?
There is no such thing as a victimless crime. In the most practical sense, crimes against traditional morality have horrendous costs for society. In the spiritual sense, they involve a lot of broken hearts and tremendous sadness.
In the case of sexual trafficking, there is good news. The Bush administration has made fighting this scourge a high priority. The Department of Justice recently held the first National Conference on Human Trafficking in Tampa Florida, and law enforcement agencies are learning a tremendous amount about how to identify and go after this crime. Since 2001, the Justice Department has charged 149 human traffickers.
The main proponents of these laws have been President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft, both of whom are much vilified by the Left for being so “judgmental” in favor of traditional morality.
Why am I against moral relativism? Because it leads to a world where the Justice Department turns a blind eye to 13-year-old girls being spirited into the United States where they are forced to work as sexual slaves. And it will lead to much, much worse.
