Modern relativistic thinking suggests that we have no rule or standard by which we can distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral. Hilary Putnam, a Harvard professor, sums it up when he declares that moral/ethical judgments are “something that we ultimately judge by the ‘seat of the pants’” (Alan Crippen, ed., “The Train Wreck of Truth and Knowledge,” Reclaiming the Culture, p. 59). “We must come to see that there is no possibility of a ‘foundation’ for ethics…” (Ibid), he asserts. Is the professor correct? Are morals and ethics based upon our own subjective opinions? Are there no moral absolutes?

Consider for a moment the repercussions of Mr. Putnam’s philosophical extreme: “The pro-life groups are right about one thing—the location of the baby inside or outside of the womb cannot make such a crucial or moral difference. We cannot coherently hold that it is all right to kill a fetus a week before birth, but as soon as the baby is born everything must be done to keep it alive. The solution, however, is not to accept the pro-life view that the fetus is a human being with the same moral status as yours or mine, the solution is the very opposite—to abandon the idea that all human life is of equal worth” (Watkins, “Death—What a Beautiful Choice,” The New Absolutes, p. 85).

A principal at an elementary school in New Hampshire, US invited a homosexual men’s chorus to give a concert to the kids. The choral members changed the words of familiar children’s songs to sing about boys loving boys and girls loving girls (“Mister Sandman, bring me a dream / Make him the cutest that I’ve ever seen”). During their concert they asked the children to raise their hands if they have two mommies or two daddies living with them. When parents heard about the concert after the fact, they confronted the principal, but she wrote them off saying the concert was “part of a multicultural emphasis at school” (“Dial Deviant for Normal,” The New Absolutes, p. 145).

Dr. John Money is a professor emeritus of medical psychology and pediatrics at John Hopkins University and an influential voice in sex research. In an interview with Paidika, a magazine that advocates civil rights for pedophiles, Dr. Money said, “If I were to see the case of a boy aged ten or eleven who’s intensely… attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then I would not call it pathological in any way.” Money believes that pedophilia is an orientation which cannot be changed or permanently suppressed” (Ibid, p. 148).

Dear reader, are there no moral absolutes in our generation?

…to be continued.

Satan knows || More