Testimonies

A Critique on the American Moral Consensus

Some people say, "The most important principle in life is to do what makes you happy. What's right is different for everyone after all! And besides, if you're good enough, you'll get into heaven!"
     It might seem like a harmless sentiment, but this sentence contains many dangerous assumptions. The assumption is that right and wrong are different from person to person. The idea that the self is the highest priority instead of God or others and that we can get into heaven by simply being quote-unquote "good enough" while "good" means something different from person to person.

These ideas are extremely prevalent in our American population today.

     A survey conducted on American adults by the Arizona Christian University showed that 58% of those surveyed believed that determining moral truth is up to the individual. The same survey displayed that about half of self-proclaimed Christians also view morality as a relative. Today we'll examine the American consensus on morality. First, defining it, second, pointing out its flaws, and finally, why we need to know these things in the first place.
     Let's begin with American culture. One worldview has had a significant influence on American moral thought. It is a set of beliefs called Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, abbreviated as MTD. According to Dr. George Barna from the Cultural Research Center at the Arizona Christian University, most believers in Moralistic Therapeutic Deism don't even know they subscribe to it - despite MTD being the most popular worldview in America.
     Sociologists Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton detail the core ideas of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism in their book titled Soul Searching. A few of these ideas go as follows:

• People are supposed to be good to each other (i.e., moral)
• The universal purpose of life of being happy and feeling good about oneself
• There are no absolute moral truths
• God allows "good people" into Heaven
• God places very limited demands on people

     On the list, we see moral relativism, the idea that there are no absolute moral truths. And yet at the top of the list, we see the idea that people are supposed to be "good to one another." This is the dilemma in our culture. If everyone is supposed to be good to one another, and the definition of "good" is different depending on the individual, then it's unclear how morality is achievable.
     In addition, believers in Moralistic Therapeutic Deism hold that the purpose of life is individual happiness and self-esteem. Ironically, the meaning of life in a worldview claiming to be moralistic does not relate to morality at all, or even helping others. American society claims that you are the priority.

Now, let's examine this worldview's flaws. First, let's look at Moralistic Therapeutic Deism as a whole. A lot of people in America claim to believe in God but also believe that morality is relative. Those ideas are completely incompatible.
     Who is God? I'm sure a lot of concepts appear in your mind, but one thing almost always associated with God is ultimate moral goodness. This idea - the perfection of God - is necessary for some of the other tenets of MTD, like sending people to Heaven. Trusting God with eternal judgments is impossible if you believe in a fallible God.
     Thus, if you believe in God, you must believe in a morally perfect God. The issue is- relative morality means that morals are not decided by God but decided by us. With that logic, the God of MTD is not truly God. If he was, then this God would have to be perfectly moral- but if a standard of "perfect" or "moral" differs from person to person, we have an idea of God that differs from person to person, making "God" just a cluster of conflicting opinions.
     Moreover, belief in God also implies belief that God is supreme in some sense. A supreme, morally perfect God that does not have control over what defines perfection is not a coherent belief.
     Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is hardly a serious worldview. Displayed by the word "therapeutic," it has developed to be a coping method for the American public to escape moral restriction.

Then, fundamentally, is morality objective or relative? I've found that objective morality has 2 major factors of support. I've named them moral truth and the division of right and wrong. Let's start with the concept of moral truth.
     What does quarreling sound like? For example, does it sound more like this: "You did something wrong, but that's all right because your morality is a different standard than mine. The only reason I'm concerned is because your action just happened to displease me." Or, does it sound like: "That's not fair. You broke your promise. That. Was. Wrong."
     This specific comparison is exactly how C.S. Lewis describes a quarrel. When we argue about right and wrong, we express moral judgments as truths rather than opinions!

In the book Mere Christianity, Lewis states:

"Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about."

If morality was subjective, doing this would have no function. In fact, it would be very inconvenient for us to express morality as truth; it would cause needless confusion.

Let's move on to the division between right and wrong. We've been fairly philosophical so far, but there are tangible world examples that prove the existence of objective morality. For example...Human rights.
     The concept of liberty for everyone was quite foreign in past historical contexts. The idea that everyone - Jews, Gentiles, slaves, free, men, and women - deserve to be treated equally regardless of origin was unheard of in many societies. Nowadays, that's common decency. That leaves us with the question: What changed? Is it morality?
     If morality changed, the only thing that divides right and wrong is the time period, the society, and ultimately, the individual. But if moral standards conflict, there would be a lot of things both right and wrong. If this is true, the idea that right and wrong are divided is completely arbitrary. Why even have different words? Why not just consider everything preference? Morality requires this division of right and wrong to matter.

But what about personal happiness and self-esteem? Is that our purpose in life? As I pointed out earlier, this tenet of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism has little to do with morality. It represents how our culture today has abandoned morality. Instead of using judgments of worth or value to determine what we ought to do in life, our culture has branded "do what makes you happy" as the ultimate standard of purpose, favoring desire over objective right and wrong. Not only does this ignore moral principles, but it's ultimately impractical. The strategies people often use to achieve happiness apart from God are usually temporary, and not always attainable. Looking good, having a significant other, attaining wealth or success in the workplace - all these things are conditional. They bring no ultimate meaning.

Here's why we need to know all these things.

Essentially, the most popular worldview in America is a false one. Being aware of what this worldview is, what it means, and why it's false, is extremely important. If you're unaware of your belief system, it's much more difficult to point out contradictions!
     Next, a society that believes in subjective morality creates a demoralized society. Without any stark, line-in-the-sand concept of morals, anything and everything is permissible as long as we say it is. We create a concept of right and wrong originating from the self rather than God, and in that, we give ourselves undue authority to arbitrarily decide just conduct based on feelings.
     Finally, believing the purpose of life to be personal happiness and self-esteem creates a selfish society. Moralistic Therapeutic Deism's conception of the meaning of life is based upon selfish human desire instead of moral principles.

Let's take a step back. We have the tools to understand that modern society is wrong about our morals. This leaves us with one unanswered question. If they're wrong, then who's right? This is where the Bible comes in. God's commands provide an unchanging basis for righteousness, removed from the conflicting moral frameworks of various cultures around the world.
     The greatest part? Redemption through Christ provides a way for us to attain eternal life without the impossibility of human perfection through good works. As Jesus himself said in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

It's important to stay aware of the contents of your beliefs and recognize that the basis of our morality ought not to be society's consensus, but rather, the perfect word of God.