"Ethics #2" Response

     At one point or another, we have all heard someone say, "That may be true for you, but not for me. Therefore, you should not be intolerant by forcing your moral views on me or anyone else". These phrases advocate a morally relativistic idea shared by worldviews such as Postmodernism, Secular Humanism, and Cosmic Humanism. According to this ambiguous form of ethics, the only truly "wrong thing to do" is to judge another person's moral ideas, thereby "imposing" one's own moral views upon others. Ultimately, these systems abolish any moral standards that apply to everyone. The two main types of ethical relativism are Moral Relativism and Cultural Relativism. Moral Relativism, the ethical view of Secular Humanism and Cosmic Humanism (through Karma), states that "morals are relative to the individual and the situation" (Noebel 140). The kind of relativism Postmodernism adheres to, Cultural Relativism, is "[t]he belief that truth and morals are relative to one's culture" (Noebel 157). At first, the implications of relativism may sound reasonable in its appeal to human individuality. However, a deeper examination of ethical relativism and its worldviews betrays the problems with implying that there are no absolute moral standards that apply to everyone.
     First of all, stating that there are no moral absolutes is, ironically enough, making a moral absolute. This self-contradiction is important, because undermines the premise behind ethical relativism. In trying to abandon moral absolutes, such moral absolutes must be formed. Essentially, it is impossible to destroy universal ideas without relying on them.
     In the world of Secular Humanism, moral relativism springs from its "[a]theistic theology", which "presents a special problem for Secular Humanists--namely, choosing a code of ethics" (Noebel 137). In fact, many Secular Humanists, such as Paul Kurtz, believe that Secular Humanists should always show kindness, be honest, show gratitude, adhere to fairness, not kill or maim others, et cetera. However, Noebel points out that "...Secular Humanists fail to address...why these values are worth defending as moral declarations" (Noebel 143). For Secular Humanism, Moral Relativism is a misguided attempt to define what people already know to ethically observe. However, they do not see it this way; rather, "Moral relativism consists of little more than experimenting with ethics in every new scenario" (Noebel 140). This approach to Moral Relativism promotes the power of random chance that is so respected in the Secular Humanist's "scientific", evolutionary worldview. However, by merging ethics with science (specifically evolution/Darwinism and Survival of the Fittest), "...Darwin's concept of the struggle for existence...become[s] the absolute on which moral decisions are based. Such a morality allows men...to insist, 'War is a biological necessity'..." (Noebel 139). Moral Relativism, when mixed with Darwinian science, negates itself by forming a "solid" moral absolute out of a branch of science such as evolution, which promotes the power of blind chance. In addition, this relativism condones war, the purest form of murder (an action Secular Humanists generally disapprove of) , as a means of evolutionary struggle for dominance and survival. Another problem with Secular Humanism's Moral Relativism is that "Secular Humanists recognize that ethical relativism has the potential to create problems among people. Although they believe that dogma unnecessarily restricts our pursuit of happiness, they do address the question of whether or not people will act responsibly in a society without rules and corresponding penalties" (Noebel 140). At the same time, however, Secular Humanists believe, "'the moral obligation to be intelligent' ranks always among the highest of duties'. The implication of this statement is that only intelligent people are capable of making correct moral choices...intelligent people are to act as the moral compass for the rest of society. This amounts to giving power to a select few to create a dogma that all others must follow. And this is precisely what Humanists try to avoid when they disassociate themselves from absolute moral codes" (Noebel 141). The problems that Moral Relativism presents to Secular Humanism in regards to the rejection of moral dogmas is yet another example of Moral Relativism's inability to stand without self-contradiction. Without any moral absolutes, Secular Humanism takes away the meaning of deep-rooted moral knowledge interwoven into the human conscience. As a result, Moral Relativism demolishes any stable knowledge Secular Humanism's adherents may feel they have in the area of ethics, creating a jaded society that knows nothing but the sinful nature of the flesh.
     Moral Relativism, in regards to Cosmic Humanism, is manifested through the idea of Karma--the "...total effect of a person's actions and conduct during each phase of existence, determining the person's destiny" (Noebel 153). The problem Moral Relativism brings to Cosmic Humanism and Karma is that each person does what he or she believes to be morally correct. This decision is allegedly based on his or her inner truth and godhood. However, each person's individual personality renders Karma useless, as what an action that one person may consider evil may be considered by another to be a path to a higher reincarnation. If all people really belong to one universal God-force, then we should all ultimately come to the same ethical conclusions, no matter what paths we take to achieve them. This unity of good and evil requires the use of Moral Relativism and its rejection of absolute morals; if such principles existed, then individuals with beliefs contrary to them would be exposed as wrong (which is something our inner god should never be). This is the reason why Cosmic Humanism accepts Moral Relativism; since it cannot explain how each person's supposed "inner god" can conflict with others' inner gods and still be God, then there is no reasonable standard of right and wrong. This is where Karma becomes important--it is simply the Cosmic Humanists' scapegoat for their inability to ascertain whose "inner god" has more power in the universal God-force in determining what is morally correct or incorrect. Thus, Cosmic Humanism's use of Moral Relativism is problematic as it plunges not only morality, but their "universal God", into endless confusion and change. Finally, portraying our spirits as an endlessly-reincarnating version of God implies that God Himself will never be complete.
     The ethical relativism in Postmodernism, Cultural Relativism, is "[t]he belief that truth and morals are relative to one's culture" (Noebel 157). The "central issue of Postmodernity", as admitted by Postmodernist Jean-Francois Lyotard, is "...the possibility of ethics, that is, right action" (Noebel 157). This kind of ethical relativism is the root of the Postmodern statement, "That may be true for you, but not for me." For this reason, Postmodernists have tried to make some sense of their individualized ethical ideas by making "...community moral standards...decided by both coercion and consensus. Morality is not connected to God or dictated by any type of natural laws; rather, ethical systems are constructed within societies" (Noebel 157). Essentially, "...moral standards are both set by culture and evolve with society...", and "[i]n the final analysis, each community places moral standards on its members' actions...the members of a particular community govern the moral choices its members are allowed to make" (Noebel 157). Unfortunately, restricting moral standards to different interpretive communities as history progresses places the Postmodernist in a similar position to the Cosmic Humanist. What may be perceived as morally correct by one culture or interpretive community  may seem evil to all the others, and vice versa. Another problem with Cultural Relativism's statement that morality evolves with culture is that it renders the keeping of any sort of morality pointless. For instance, if there is nothing but interpretation, as Postmodernism declares, then any person within their community can (and probably will, due to Man's individual nature) interpret his or her cultural morality in his or her own way (even if the rest of the community disagrees). Therefore, the idea of any moral system held community-wide is more like an impossible dream. A good example of this is Richard Rorty's idea "that he can do whatever his particular community allows him to get away with" (Noebel 157). Noebel also points out that "[i]n a very real sense, Rorty is trying to 'push' the evolution of society's moral standards into line with his own. In the end, morality and society operate like an unconscious negotiation--everyone in a community is presenting the beliefs he or she prefers...in the end, consensus emerges--although the consensus is in a constant state of arbitration" (Noebel 158). The goal of Postmodern ethics shown here is another self-contradiction that ethical relativism brings to its worldviews. The Postmodern assertion that one should never try to impose his or her own morality upon others (which is a morally absolute statement) is negated in Rorty and other Postmodernists' "pushing" of moral evolution onto the rest of their community. Furthermore, the idea that "consensus is in a constant state of arbitration" based on the amalgamation of several people's moral ideas is simply a demonstration of Man's inability to adhere to any firm moral structure that points out his flaws. It has been said that "he who trims himself to suit everyone will soon whittle himself away". By trying to achieve even temporary "consensus" (group agreement), Postmodernism and Cultural Relativism can no longer  argue for the rights of individuals to their own morality. "Consensus" advocates conforming to others' opinions, which is still forcing a person to submit his or herself to a set of morals different from his or her own, no matter how nicely this consensus combines different moralities. This is exactly what Postmodernists do not want to see in ethics. Cultural Relativism does not encourage communities, tolerance, or any other Postmodern ideas; rather, it ruins Postmodernism by riddling it with self-contradictions.
     Declaring the nonexistence of a universal moral code is merely an excuse for oneself to do whatever he or she wants; essentially, it is an abuse of the term "morality". The damage it brings to worldviews such as Secular and Cosmic Humanism, as well as Postmodernism, serves to highlight the ethical blindness from which their adherents suffer. In reality, universal moral standards that apply to everyone, regardless of era, culture, et cetera, are needed to explain our innate sense of right and wrong. Ultimately, acknowledging these moral standards will always point to the righteous God Who created them.

"Nathan asks you to watch this video" Response

     Since the beginning of time, there have always been two principles whose effects guide human ethics and actions. These principles are good and evil. It is often said that doing good things are what constitutes a "good person", while doing evil makes one a "bad person". The Cosmic Humanist doctrine of karma, however, takes this idea to an extreme level, applying the balance of good and evil all the way down to one's actions. In fact, as the video states, the word "karma" means, "action". David Noebel defines karma as "[t]he total effect of  a person's actions and conduct during each phase of existence, determining the person's destiny" (Noebel 153). Essentially, karma's main idea is, as the old saying goes, "what goes around comes around". While this ethical standpoint may at first seem morally balanced (and therefore appealing), deeper analysis shows it to be Man's flimsy, relativistic attempt at defining ethics apart from a God of solid, reliable absolutes.

     Karma's biggest problem is that it cannot even be seen as a possibility for a universal kind of morality, as it derives from moral relativism--"[t]he belief that morals are relative to the individual and the situation" (Noebel 140). Shirley MacLaine further defines karma in the following manner: "'Whatever action one takes will ultimately return to that person--good and bad--maybe not in this life embodiment, but sometime in the future. And no one is exempt.... For every act, for every indifference, for every misuse of life, we are finally held accountable. And it is up to us to understand what those accounts might be'" (Noebel 153). David Noebel refutes MacLaine's argument by explaining that, "'...because there is no standard by which to judge what may be 'an act of indifference,' or 'a misuse of life', we cannot know if there is any difference between them, or, for that matter, if there is any difference between cruelty and non-cruelty. This is an alarming conclusion, but one Cosmic Humanists accept" (Noebel 153). In other words, karma mutilates the concepts of good and evil by uniting them as one concept in the overall scheme of reincarnation, et cetera, in the Universe. Another example of this vile unity is shown by David Spangler's belief that "Christ is the same force as Lucifer....Lucifer prepares man for the experience of Christhood....Lucifer works within each of us to bring us to wholeness as we move in to the New Age" (153). 

     Karma, then, not only makes morality unknowable, but destroys any meaning behind morality's influence on history. It takes away our ability to appreciate the efforts of the Apostles, to feel disgusted by the Holocaust, and to feel sympathy for the downtrodden in the present and future--all because what we used to know as absolutely "good" and "evil" are supposed to be one. Instead of helping to establish any reasonable moral boundaries, karma tears down the universal sense of right and wrong found in the consciences of people around the world. 

     The ambiguous, relativistic view of ethics found in New Age (such as Nathan's) morality is that what is "good" or "bad" is always in jeopardy of being changed in the newest route to achieving ultimate "godhood" everywhere. Therefore, according to such logic, the evil one might have done in a past life may suddenly become worthy of a higher reincarnation by the time one would (theoretically) be reincarnated into a new existence. Therefore, multiple phases of existence (from accumulated karma) and its role in our ultimate destiny becomes useless, and karma becomes an invalid theory. Finally, Nathan's video and its idea of "trusting one's heart" for being "karmically appropriate" in certain actions places far too much power on the decisions of Man. Even though we are supposed to be "God", the fact that we cannot even bring ourselves to such a consciousness (hence the existence of evil, etc.) renders us incapable of passing such important ethical judgments. In closing, karma is unable to bring any kind of positive, universal moral contribution. Rather, the only kind of good with which it can serve humanity is by its universal rejection. That way, there would be one less fallacy in the world that distracts people from the real God of the Bible.