Whose Morality?

Here are some excerpts from a recent column by Cal Thomas:

"The question of morals and ethics has been debated since the dawn of humanity. It won't be settled by the shifting winds of politics, because not everyone can agree on what is moral and what is not.

Dictionary.com defines morality: "Conformity to the rules of right conduct."

Ah, but here's the rub. That definition fits a different era. Morality today is personal. It is not a standard to which one is encouraged to conform for one's own, or society's benefit. Rather, it is about what makes one feel good. By this nonstandard standard, people can easily change their sense of what is moral as they might a suit of clothes or a pair of shoes and suffer no societal condemnation because that moral code, such as it is, exists only for the individual.

 When Obama speaks of ethics and morality, the follow-up questions should be: "Whose ethics and whose morality? Who, or what, established that standard?"

Moral relativism has contributed to a host of societal and relational problems few wish to acknowledge. To do so would force people to admit their standard, which in reality is no standard at all, isn't working. And such an acknowledgement could lead to what theologians call repentance, a turning away from the old and embracing the new, which is not new, but the old, tried, and proven best.

Obama may be the most pro-abortion president America has ever had. By what standard is his position moral? The president used to be against same-sex marriage. Now he's for it. Was he moral when he opposed it, or is he moral now that he supports it? And what is his standard, because these positions are contradictory?

Mark Twain is quoted as saying: "Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

That's funny, but Twain didn't tell us what he thought was right. What is the new standard for "right" and "moral?" Who established it, and why should anyone follow your standard when mine might be the antithesis of yours?

The inability or unwillingness to answer these questions and to enforce a moral code that mostly served humanity well until the self-indulgent 1960s began to destroy its foundations is responsible for the confusion and moral chaos we witness today.

Who will rescue us from this moral quagmire? It won't be anyone running for president. These things bubble up from the human heart; they do not trickle down from Washington."

 

When I read that column I remembered what my mother said: "You can't legislate righteousness." The whole mess in our nation today comes from disregarding the Word of God. The unchanging Word of God is the only standard that can be trusted. Without it, we have no solid foundation on which to build our lives and no absolute standards for morals and ethics. The answer is to get back to the Bible.