The Trouble with Moral Values
  by David Eller

According to one much-quoted poll, more voters based their recent presidential decision on “moral values” than any other issue. If this is really the case—and it is not certain that it is—there are some troubling things that “values voters” and all of us should consider.

The first problem is, which morals. We all have morals, lots of them. One moral is not to kill, and another is to defend yourself even with war. They contradict. One moral is to respect human dignity and freedom, and another is to condemn certain people or their lifestyles as “sin.” They contradict. So people can arrive at completely opposite conclusions based on “their morals.” On one moral ground, a person might reject gay marriage, but on another moral ground—say, the principles of equality, inclusion, and justice—another person might support it. Both would equally be “values voters.”

The problem of which morals raises the problem of whose morals. There are many different moral systems. Christian morality is not the same as Muslim, Buddhist, Native American, or humanist morality. Sure, there are some commonalities, but there are also many disagreements. Morality is also changeable over time: Christians do not consider it moral to kill their disobedient children nor immoral to eat pork, although both are clear moral orders in their scriptures. They do not even consider it immoral to make images of anything in heaven or on earth, although their 10 commandments expressly instruct them not to (Exodus 20:4). By that rule, every photograph, painting, and movie is immoral—even or especially “The Passion of the Christ.”

Because morality is complex, diverse, and culturally relative, it is a shaky foundation to build a political consensus on. That is why the Constitution expressly avoids moral issues in favor of practical and rational ones—ones we can all share. That takes us to the most serious problem with morality, its non-negotiability. If a person feels that his or her values are the “right” ones—or worse, that people with other values are bad or have no values at all—then how do they talk to each other? There is no room for debate or discussion, only condescension and condemnation. Politics is the art of compromise, but morality is the antithesis of compromise. Is, then, morality the antithesis of politics? Just look around: all people with “strong moral values” seem to be able to do today is shout at and criticize each other. People who base their thinking on moral principles have a harder time tolerating disagreement than people who base theirs on other grounds. Sometimes I fear that might be the point: morality-talk shuts down all dissent and debate.

The hardest question of all is, what makes a morality moral or a value valuable? Why, in other words, take one moral position rather than another? The only way to approach such a question is in terms of something else, which is what makes morality relative. A suggestion for an answer is that a moral or value that makes life better for everyone is a better moral or value than one that makes life better for some and worse for others. But if that is the case, then tolerance, respect, and equality would be the highest morals of all.

Send us an Email

Or write to us at:
Freethinkers of Colorado Springs
P.O. Box 62946
Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2946
Phone: 719-594-4506