Ethics For The Nineties
By William E. Brown
The article below was written by the president of Bryan ('college. It has been adapted from Bryan Life, Summer, 1995, Pp. 2, 14, for publication here. Professor Brown 's words are worthy of consideration. Please note a parallel article found elsewhere: in this issue of GOT -- Larry Ray Hafly).
"Don't you think adultery is wrong?" The man who was being interviewed on a national Talk show shook his head and gave a pained smile. "Hey" he replied to the interviewer, "This is the 90;s." Why did the people in the studio applaud? What is it about our society that makes it an embarrassment to believe in absolute truth and morality? The trend toward personalized ethics dominates our public discourse on issues from international relations to welfare: from ... adultery to ... sexual promiscuity .... At the heart of this trend are three underlying assumptions which have become a part of the-American way of thinking.
Morality Marches On
The first assumption is reflected in the opening example — "This is the 90V The common view is that morality is constant!}1 changing with the times, What was once considered moral!}- wrong can now be considered acceptable because we have progressed beyond the naive morality of the past. For example, we know more about science and history than we did a hundred years ago: in fact, we have corrected many errors and misconceptions about the past. What was held to be "true" in the past is not necessarily "true" today. From this perspective, the moral standards of the past are at best naive. Any person who holds that the universal standards of morality of the past are appropriate for today's "enlightened" civilization is a dinosaur, an obscurant relic of the past. "Haven't you read Nietzsche, Freud, and all the modem new-age writers?" modem moralists ask. "They call us to move beyond traditional forms of morality to achieve the next level of human development. Stop getting in the way of progress!"
The Devil And DNA
The second assumption is to see all human actions as a result of purely physical factors, particularly genetic. Our genetic makeup causes us to behave in certain ways. These actions may be different from those commonly practiced by the general population. Such actions may be called "immoral" by the majority as it asserts its numerical superiority over the actions of the minority. Instead of, "The devil made me do it," it is more proper to say, "The DNA made me do it."
A good example of this is found in a recently published book by Robert Wright, The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology In Everyday Life. Wright attempts to prove that sexual promiscuity is natural because of the built-in human drive to reproduce as widely as possible. He writes, "According to the evolutionary psychologists, our everyday, ever shifting attitudes toward a mate or prospective mate — trust, suspicion, rhapsody, revulsion, wants, iciness — are the handiwork of natural selection that remain with us today because in the past they led to behavior that helped spread genes." (Such behavior now leads "to behavior that " has helped spread AIDS. So, why does not that "prove" that such behavior now ought to be condemned? ~ LRH).
These conclusions are reached by weighing certain body parts of chimpanzees and gorillas and noting their mating patterns. Comparing these finding with the widespread occurrences of adultery and polygamy in human culture, it seems "natural" for humans to have a biological drive toward infidelity. Does anybody take this seriously? Of course! Wright's theory was the lead story in a recent issue of Time (August 15, 1994) and most of the media reported the "findings." (Male lions and bears eat their offspring. Should we?-LRH).
Last month an Anglican bishop in Scotland criticized churches for their lack of under standing toward people who commit adultery. The Most Rev. Richard Holloway claims that humans have a God-given urge to "propagate as widely as possible." He goes on to say, "God has given us our promiscuous genes so I think it would be wrong for the Church to condemn people who have followed their instincts." (Evidently., my " urge" to whop bishop Holloway upside the head for such a comment is centered in my genes and is "God-given." I wonder if he thinks "it would be wrong for the Church to condemn people" like me who follow through on "their instincts" and give him a whack? Also, like the animals, man has "a God - given urge" to relieve himself, to excrete bodily waste. Does the "Most Rev." Holloway immediately relieve himself, no matter where he is, when this "God - given urge" strikes'? If not, why not? Dogs, cows and horses do. Meanwhile, it might be best not to invite "The Most Rev." Holloway to dinner until we find out, or until he is housebroken — LRH).
My Father Made Me Do It
A third assumption claims that human behavior is the result of the social influences a person experiences. These experiences, particularly those of significant family members such as parents, and spouses, cause the individual to act in a certain manner. From this perspective, people are "victims" of their social environment and not responsible for any actions arising from that influence .... I am not discounting the fact that there may be genetic and social factors which influence a person's behavior, but our current approach to morality, defined by moral relativism and victimization, ultimately dehumanizes our culture. These assumptions locate the moral center of gravity at its lowest point: personal choice and individual preference.
Back To The Basics
How long must we put up with the horrible consequences of this approach, seen in the huge and dramatic increases in violent crimes among youth, teenage suicide, teen pregnancy and abortion? What legacy are we leaving our children? The current chaotic situation in our society will not be overcome until we replace these three faulty assumptions with two truths.
The first truth is basic: Morality, both public and private, originates in the character and will of God. If American culture continues to base morality exclusively on the foundation of "personal choice" (just watch the daytime talk shows to see this belief exploited), then by what standards can we call anything right or wrong? The human endeavor is not to create our own morality, but to discover and live by the true morality.... God has spoken clearly and revealed His character and will in the Scriptures. By conforming our lives and our societies to the basic guidelines He has revealed, harmony
and peace are the result. I am not advocating a theocracy or a "Christian takeover." God's moral order is revealed ... intended to guide all moral choices, persona! and corporate.
The second truth is just as basic: All people are individually and personally
responsible for their actions. To treat a human being any less is an indignity. Even if there are extenuating circumstances, every person has a choice either to conform to or depart from the moral law. These choices must be rewarded or punished based upon God's standards, not the circumstances .... A society does no good to itself or its people when it praises what is evil and excuses what is morally wrong.
Yes, "this is the 90's," but since Jesus Christ is the same "yesterday, today and forever," it does not matter if this is AD 95 or 1995. God's laws do not change with the calendar. We have the opportunity to be salt and light in a world that is increasingly unsavory and dark.
(from Larry Hafley's website sermonwork.com- dw)
Warrenton Church of Christ -Dalton Weaver - preacher
514 McKinley
Warrenton, Missouri 63383
456-4005 (Building)
Web Site — www.warrentonchurchofchrist.com
E-Mail — warrentoncoc@warrentonchurchofchrist.com