The Accusation Of Moral Relativism

So it seems Imago Dei blog has decided to throw a punch at us. They don't do a very good job of it, but since they took the trouble to call us out, I suppose we oughta slap 'em back to where they came from.

They say, you know, the same old stuff:

TTF is an organization that was formed to protect the "condom on a cucumber" film that will be displayed to Montgomery County, Maryland teens (posted previously here.) In naming the organization Teach the Facts, the implication is that those who oppose having their children view an attractive teacher placing a condom on a cucumber are interested in forcing non-factual values on the malleable brains of these teens.

Then they cut and paste a section of the 8th grade curriculum, the part titled Peer Pressure and Other Factors That Can Influence Decisions Regarding Sexual Behavior. Under section C. Sifting through all the influences there is a line that says:

only you can decide what is best for you

Ooh! That's all these guys need! They're off:

This curriculum asserts that there is no standard of morality outside of "deciding what is right for you". This is moral relativism, and is a particular view of morality which is even rejected by some of the most strident atheists.

Teaching moral relativism as a fact absolutely undermines the ability of parents to eductate their children on the presence of an objective moral code. The present way that sex education is taught to our chidren gives them the impression that they are the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong. The influence and teachings of their family and faith are presented as potential influences to their ethical thinking (along with the media and peers), but a responsible and moral decision is ultimately one that is best for them.

This is dictating values. This is forcing non-factual information on students. This is undermining the parents right and responsibility to teach their children regarding important life and death issues.

OK, deep breath. Here are two statements:

• only you can decide what is best for you
• there is no standard of morality outside of "deciding what is right for you"

Would you say the second sentence accurately interprets the first one?

Did the Board of Education really mean to say "there is no standard of morality outside of 'deciding what is right for you?'"

If you believe the answer to that question is yes, then you'll probably buy the rest of it, too. Because you have to make the first error in order to move on to the others, like "This is moral relativism."

I suppose saying "there is no standard of morality outside of 'deciding what is right for you'" could be criticized, if somebody cared to, by saying This is moral relativism. If only somebody had actually said that, the conversation could reasonably proceed by discussing whether they were expressing a position of "moral relativism" or not. But nobody said it, so the reasonable discussion never gets to that moderately interesting question.

Further -- if somebody had said "there is no standard of morality outside of 'deciding what is right for you'," we could discuss whether This is dictating values or not. But ... nobody said it, so the argument that the proposition dictates values is vacuous. The actual statement does not seem to dictate any values, on the face of it.

If someone had said "there is no standard of morality outside of 'deciding what is right for you'," well, it might make for an interesting philosophical discussion to dissect whether this was literally or figuratively teaching moral relativism as a fact, and what the implications of that would be for families raising children.

Is someone had said, "there is no standard of morality outside of 'deciding what is right for you'," it would be reasonable to discuss whether This is forcing non-factual information on students. Because, I would have agreed, a statement about standards of morality would be technically "non-factual," since there is no way of proving that it is true or false.

But ... still, sadly for these bright fellows who have this important weblog, nobody said that, so the content of their discussion is entirely self-referential.

But what a case they might have made! How they would have triumphed over the forces of weakness and darkness, if the school board report had indeed said that "there is no standard of morality outside of 'deciding what is right for you'." If MCPS had said that, the battle could commence for the forces of Right to vanquish the weakness and foolishness of Evil, amid the clashing of clever slogans and brilliant sound-bites, with epithets, insinuations, and innuendo ringing loud through the purple mountains majesty.

But, since nobody said that, these guys just look like buffoons, stating a proposition and then refuting it themselves.

Mmm, I see the CRC blog is trying to make an issue out of this, too, quoting the Pope about morality. So let me add a word here. Most religions believe that their God has created moral categories: right and wrong. The complaint about "moral relativism" comes from an assumption, by members of one religion, that their particular God, their particular right and wrong, must be the only ones -- there can be no other truth.

The problem of course, is that there are many different religions, and even people who don't participate in an organized religion at all. And people of all sorts -- atheists, Mormons, Moslems, Christians, Jews, pagans, Hindus -- do, in fact, distinguish right from wrong, and do make moral choices, even if they do not agree on the origin of the system of distinctions they use to make those choices.

It is appropriate for any religious person to believe that their tradition is the correct one -- I can't think of any religion that considers itself one of many that are equally good. But life is rich and diverse, and even the most devout person must realize that some people do not share their beliefs. If such a person feels obligated to believe that only members of their particular group can make valid moral choices, then they are simply missing the point -- in fact, such a prejudice, such a lack of respect for one's fellow man, should be considered immoral by an affirming ethical system.

A person making a decision about their sexual behavior will refer to whatever is appropriate in their own life, which may be scripture or some other criterion. No group has a monopoly on morality. The comment in the MCPS curriculum outline reflects this fact.