Cal Thomas: Who sets the standard for what is ‘moral’?

In a recent interview for the BBC series “Inside Obama’s White House,” President Obama sounded somewhat wistful as he spoke about how he has tried to use his voice “to move things toward a more ethical and moral outcome.”

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, one can easily change one’s 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?”

For example, you might say there is no God and then turn around and tell me I should not be a racist, or that I should help someone in need. I might respond, “Why should I?” If we are all evolutionary accidents, why can’t I believe and practice anything I wish?

Perhaps you respond that there are laws prohibiting discrimination. To that I answer, “Suppose the laws are changed; is it then OK to discriminate?” It was once legal to own slaves, but did that law make slavery moral?

There is the Constitution, but the courts are busy renovating that great document to fit the spirit of the age as reflected in opinion polls, which now determine almost everything.

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

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?

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, D.C.

This story was originally published April 12, 2016 at 7:01 PM with the headline "Cal Thomas: Who sets the standard for what is ‘moral’?."