I am in the middle of reading a batch of student essays explaining what they think is the best foundation for making moral decisions on public issues. As a teacher, I am encouraged that many have had the courage to tackle the question. But several trends are troubling.
Many are quick to identify conscience as a guide to personal moral decisions, but have no idea how a society might form a consensus that something is immoral or moral. Many students repeat the dogma that the variety of moral standards within different cultures means there are no universal morals. In the past those who asserted this cultural relativism would still try to suggest some moral standard like the golden rule, but increasingly they are doing something commendable and frightening, they are becoming logically consistent. They are admitting there is no standard for right and wrong that can guide a society. They are agreeing with Dostoyevsky’s claim that if God does not exist, all things are permissible.
Such logical consistency is more honest than rejecting a religious source of morality, but still trying to run society on the fumes left in the tank. But this honesty can only lead to hope, and not despair, if it is the beginning and not the end of their inquiry. What are the consequences of believing all morality is a private issue and that all social issues must be decided on pragmatic grounds? It means Martin Luther King is wrong to suggest discrimination is immoral, instead it is merely inefficient, impractical, or uneconomical. It means we can’t condemn slavery, past and present, as morally wrong–that is a private issue–but merely unbeneficial or inconvenient.
Claiming there is no basis for a public and social morality means we can’t talk about human rights in an intellectually coherent way. No war criminals can be convicted of “crimes against humanity” because this phrase implies some unwritten law that transcends the laws of nations or cultures. Many of this generation now have no way of morally critiquing their own culture. Some students bluntly state that when the majority of Americans accepted slavery, slavery was moral. These students aren’t running on empty, or running on fumes, they have stepped on the brakes. The very idea of a social conscience has been rejected by many. Moral convictions have been reduced to personal preferences.
For instance, if I ask a class if we should leave the question of whether to keep or get rid of a baby up to the mother, many students are quick to say that this is moral decision best left up to the mother. They will go on to say the mother should follow her conscience and not have anyone else’s morality forced on her. I then clarify that I was talking about a one year old baby. To their credit, they are quick to say, “Oh, that’s different”.
When asked why it is different, the trouble begins. Some will say because killing the one year old is illegal. Then I ask if it would be moral if not illegal. Most say no. I also ask why in this case it is okay for us to shove our morality on the mother by making infanticide illegal. At this point many students fall silent. Some say the older baby is a person, but can’t explain exactly why one group should force their definition of personhood on others. They quickly discover they have no basis for condemning infanticide as morally wrong.
The dogma of cultural and ethical relativism, the fear of being moralistic or intolerant, has left them totally unequipped to take moral stands on any public issues. When faced with all the bio-ethical questions on our horizon, they will only be able to say, “To each his own, different strokes for different folks, whatever floats your boat, if it feels good, do it” or some other mantra taught by the baby-boomers who main-lined ethical relativism. Or worse: they may succumb to our worship of celebrity and let some charismatic leader make these decisions.
At most colleges instructors energetically teach the doctrine of ethical relativism (sometimes in the name of cultural diversity) while hosting elaborate celebrations of Martin Luther King Day. This is ironic because King’s whole argument in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” is that God’s law is higher than man’s law and should be followed everywhere–even Alabama. My generation and many public educators have robbed this generation of the ethical framework Lincoln and King used to condemn slavery and discrimination as morally wrong and a violation of God’s law.
The good news is that many of my students are quick to talk about their personal source of morality. And some can speak eloquently about the need to have a sensitive conscience and to follow the golden rule in personal conduct. Many seem intellectually inconsistent enough to live ethical lives. But almost all have yielded to the privatization of morality and fallen silent about social/moral issues. We need their voices. Morally our culture is running on empty (or coasting backwards) and many educators are guilty of punching holes in the tank.
