Most secular individuals do not confront these consequences of moral relativism. It is too painful for most decent secular people to realize that their moral relativism, their Godless morality, means that murder is not really wrong, that "I think murder is wrong," is as meaningless as "I think purple is ugly."
That is why our culture has so venerated the Ten Commandments – it is a fixed set of God-given moral laws and principles. But that is also why opponents of America remaining a Judeo-Christian country – people who advocate moral relativism – want the Ten Commandments removed from all public buildings. The Ten Commandments represents objective, i.e., God-based morality.
In secular society, where there is no God-based morality, there is no moral truth to pursue. The consequences may be easily seen by observing that the most morally confused institution in America, the university – where good and evil are often either denied or inverted – is also its most secular.
(Before I begin, let me just say that my problem with the Ten Commandments being displayed are not about the morality they embody. My problem is that a secular government has no business displaying any religious icons or symbols of any kind, especially if they allow only Christian displays, as that could be argued as endorsement of a religion. So the beautiful sculpture you have of the Ten Commandments has historical and artistic value. Great! Donate it to a church, museum, or Christian school and let them display it.)
Moral relativism is not about "the right thing is whatever you feel like doing." The very idea is absurd. Moral relativism simply acknowledges that the best course of action sometimes varies depending on the situation and the people involved. It takes an active mental effort to reason the best solution to a complicated moral problem. Take stem cell research, for example. Embryos left over from IVF are used for extremely promising scientific research that could ultimately save millions of lives. There are many questions a reasonable person needs to ask to achieve the best possible solution to this moral puzzle: could we change IVF so that there are no extra embryos? How necessary is it to use these particular cells? What exactly is the research for? Do the embryos feel, or have any consciousness? What fate would befall them if they were not used for research? And so on.
A person of supposedly objective morality, especially based on religion (like my father), would answer a resounding no, that stem cell research is and will always be immoral, if only because embryos are future babies. He would come to this conclusion without any real thought or deep reflection. While I can respect his opinion, I cannot respect the way he arrived at it. He answers quickly and forcefully not because of the strength of his convictions, but because he is afraid of the questions. He refuses to entertain the idea that life's moral conundrums are not always black and white, and that sometimes they require more involvement than simply stating "thou shalt not murder." He is afraid to realize that he is not the keeper of the great solution to all life's problems. He does not want to admit that sometimes, despite the Bible, he is at a loss.
This is what moral relativism is. The willingness to ask the questions, to change your mind, to admit sometimes you just don't know what the right thing is. It's easy to say "always be honest," but what if, by telling the truth, you allow someone to harm an innocent person? "Always be honest" does not apply to spies, or undercover cops, or prisoners of war. It's easy to say "all terrorism is wrong," but what do you call the Boston Tea Party? Despite its innocuous name, it was an act of terrorism. I am not implying that it was wrong or uncalled for, or that the religious zealots we call terrorists today are right or justified. However, it is thought-provoking to step back, put personal emotions aside, and look closely at what we call morality. Moral relativism is not only a valid viewpoint, it is what we all practice, Dennis Prager and my father included.
After all, how could a religious person read through all of the incest, rape, lying, murder, theft, and blasphemy of the Bible and come out with what we call Judeo-Christian morality? No reasonable person reads the story of Lot and his daughters and says, "Good thing he offered his virgin daughters to be gang-raped by strangers. Maybe I'll try that next time someone tries to break into my house!" After all, Lot was the only good man left in Sodom. God saved only him and his family! You would think he would be a role model. But instead, people read that story and say, "Huh, how sick. I guess things were different then, I couldn't imagine doing that to my children." Why do they do that? If they really get their morality from the Bible, why do they have a problem with rape, an act the Bible never condemns? They must have some kind of internal compass, before they ever read a single page, that tells them what behavior to admire and imitate and what behavior to condemn and avoid. The vast majority of people do this picking and choosing all through the Bible, because following the examples set forth in the Bible would cause a clash with their inner, true morality compass.
It has been theorized that, just like most other species, we instinctively attempt to do what is best for us and society. Sometimes self-preservation takes precedence, but for the most part all we obey the big, instinctive rules that preserve our species as a whole—things like abstaining from killing one another or stealing from one another. It is why we struggle with questions about whether it is acceptable to let one die to save a thousand, or kill embryos to save millions. It is why we struggle with many Biblical stories of people we think we are supposed to admire, but can't bring ourselves to. In a society as large as ours, and as disconnected geographically and emotionally, some instincts of species preservation go unheeded because we don't feel part of a group. But the instinct is still there, and it is what drives us to make moral judgments.
What do you think? Where does your morality come from?