Morals and Emotions: Discovering the Enemy of Biblical Ethics

Moral Relativism (1)
By T.M. Moore | Published Date: August 15, 2011

The human claim to fame?
Robert Wright once argued that the human being is a “moral animal.” That is, what sets us apart from other animals is a sophisticated sense of “oughtness” – of right and wrong. Human beings, alone among all other creatures, construct systems of morality to guide the choices and actions of their daily lives.

Ethics, in other words, sets us apart. Human beings do not respond to situations or contrive actions merely out of a sense of habit or intuition. We plan, play, plot, and practice what we do because of what believe about basic questions of right and wrong. Human beings are moral creatures, and moral creatures create ethical systems to guide their conduct.

But what is the source of this moral sense? Where does the human need for ethics originate?

Moral relativism
The January 9, 2011, issue of Philosophy Now magazine featured a symposium of ethicists discussing this subject. Together, they provide an overview of current thinking about the ethics of moral relativism. Moral relativism is that system of ethical thought which acknowledges the human need for ethics and endorses a wide variety of approaches to ethics, deriving from one or another aspect of the human condition.

Since moral relativism, in one form or another, is perhaps the dominant ethical view of our day, it’s a good idea that Christians try to understand it and know how to respond. So I intend to devote five installments of this space to considering the various perspectives on moral relativism set forth in this symposium, and to recommend some aspects of a Christian response to the crisis of ethics in which humanity is presently ensnared.

Nurture more than nature
Dr. Jesse Prinz, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the City University of New York, led off the discussion. He insisted that morality is conditioned by the culture in which we are nurtured, as that culture shapes our emotions to respond one way or another (“Morality is a Culturally Conditioned Response”). Nurture, in other words, is more important than nature in shaping the ways we think and act.

Because of this, and because cultures are so different, Dr. Prinz explained that all morals are relative. Who is to say that one culture’s morals should be preferred over those of any other culture, except, perhaps, within that particular culture and society? Dr. Prinz concluded that, at a certain level, conflicting moral beliefs can be true because of the “different moral worldviews” existing from culture to culture.

Dr. Prinz writes, “With morals, unlike science, there is no well-recognized standard that can be used to test, confirm, or correct when disagreements arise.” This is a crucial point for all moral relativists. He’s undoubtedly correct about that, that there is no “well-recognized” standard – at least, not currently on the moral radar screen of most ethicists or even most people.

But does that mean that no such standard exists? Until the discovery – or rather, rediscovery – of the Rosetta Stone, archaeologists had pretty much concluded that there was no way of interpreting Egyptian hieroglyphics. All that, as we know, changed very suddenly.

Dr. Prinz points to the role of emotions in moral formation, in particular, the use of negative emotions to shape our sense of right and wrong. If something we do causes us to feel guilt or shame, we learn that this is an action to avoid. When what others do causes us anger or disgust, we learn not to do that ourselves. Thus, “we decide something is wrong by instrospecting our feelings.”

As our cultural environment affirms certain kinds of actions and discourages others, we learn what to feel good about doing and what not to feel good about doing. In the process, an emotional foundation for morality is established that can then function to guide reasoned thinking about larger moral issues.

The role of affections
Dr. Prinz is certainly correct concerning the powerful role of emotions in shaping human life. The Christian will agree, as Jonathan Edwards explained, that affections exert a very powerful effect on our thinking and actions. The heart, as Scripture has it, plays a central role in determining the kind of people we become. Solomon wrote that all the great issues of life flow from the heart (Prov. 4:23). Thus, it is important, for moral formation and much more, that we understand the nature of affections and how they work to make us one kind of person or another.

But are affections – in particular, the affections generated within any particular culture – a given of the human condition, simply to be accepted because they are what they are? Just because people of one culture feel good enslaving people from another culture – even though those enslaved may have a different code of ethics – does that mean we must endorse such a practice, or, at least, make room for it as an acceptable behavior within the family of humankind?

But Dr. Prinz’s argument sounds at times as though he believes that whatever the existing morality may be in any culture, it must be what’s right for that culture. He can’t go quite that far, however, and is led to fall back on certain moral verities which, he assumes, everyone accepts – such as that we ought not do things which are deliberately pernicious or harmful to defenseless others.

But why we should accept these guidelines – other than simply because people do – is not explained. Scripture explains it, though, by insisting that our sense of moral oughtness is divinely inculcated. The works of God's Law are written on the hearts of all people (Rom. 2:14, 15). But this need not cause us to fear that there is no room for human freedom, or for applying divine law to particular circumstances in ways that might, at times, appear to be contradictory. For example, when the Law of God instructs that runaway slaves should not be returned, yet Paul sends Onesimus back to Philemon, is Paul violating the Law of God (Deut. 23:15, 16; Philem. 12)? The answer, of course, is “No,” but the reason why is complex and would require us to divert from our present path.

The enemy of Biblical ethics?
There is a ground for dialog with the moral relativist when it comes to debating the great moral issues of the day. Dr. Prinz wants us to consider the affections as central to moral reasoning, and this is not disagreeable to a Biblical worldview.

However, we shall want to press the good doctor a bit further concerning those non-negotiable ethical convictions which must, in the end, guide the emotions we adopt and the morality these emotions suggest.

The Scriptures and the Christian worldview can account for these non-negotiables; moral relativism, on the other hand, cannot. It simply has to hope that they exist, and that everyone can agree on what they are.

Yet a standard for all ethical thinking and living exists, a moral Rosetta Stone to help us interpret what it means to do the right thing in an situation: the Law of God. The Law of God is holy and righteous and good, and it reflects the very character and lifestyle of our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 7:12; Matt. 5:17-19). The fact that this standard is not “well recognized” is the fault neither of the Law of God nor the moral relativist. It is the fault of those who are instructed to meditate in that Law day and night (Ps. 1), walk in those commandments as Jesus did (1 Jn. 2:1-6), and build communities of love for God and neighbor with that Law as their foundation (Matt. 22:34-40), but who, instead, have failed to embrace the Law as they should, and who practice, in its place, a kind of “spiritual moral relativism” in the name of sentimental love and sanctimonious “tolerance.”

We have met the enemy of biblical ethics, in other words, and we are it.

We will not be able to appreciate the contribution of moral relativists, nor to help them discover the error in their thinking, until we rediscover the power of God’s holy and righteous and good Law to train our hearts and lives for loving God and neighbor in ways that reflect the ethics of Jesus Christ.

How dangerous is moral relativism? Order your copy of our new DVD series,Doing the Right Thing, and lead a group of your friends in understanding our present crisis of ethics. You should also read the article, “‘Society Says’ Relativism,” by Greg Koukl.