The recent court case in Canada involving the death of four women raises the eternal questions concerning what is right and what is wrong and who gets to decide. This is no light matter as it is at the heart of the story recorded in chapters two and three of Genesis that includes the first sin committed in the Garden of Eden by those elders of ours. As the story goes, God says this is right and that is wrong. Those first people made the decision that they had as much right to decide those issues as their Creator. We've been struggling with that question ever since.
Can the appeal to moral absolutes bring order to society? Can we have an orderly society without an appeal to moral absolutes? How do we have an orderly society when different people appeal to different sets of absolutes? That is a major issue in the Canadian murder case. Though the defense said a terrible accident occurred, the moral absolutes to which some appeal in their interpretation of their religious law say that if the surviving family members are guilty of killing the victims, they were in their rights to protect the honor of their family against the sins of those who strayed. Note that leading Islamic leaders in Canada, America, and in Middle Eastern Muslim countries reject any foundation for honor killing in Islamic law.
The conflict of differing moral absolutes will increase in western culture as it is impacted by those whose moral bases come from a different tradition of whatever origin. Each national system of justice will have to determine if it can exist with competing moral traditions. If not, then someone on some basis will have to decide which moral system prevails regardless of the roots of that system.
When there is no such moral authority to which a group can appeal, the result is the image given in the last verse of the Book of Judges in the Bible. "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes." (RSV) In such circumstances the law of survival soon becomes paramount. Call it the survival of the fittest, the Law of the Claw and Fang, or might makes right. The results are the same. The strongest in will and physical resources will almost always determine what is right and what is wrong, what are to be the laws of the land.
Without moral absolutes built into the foundation of a nation that determine what is right and wrong, then an appeal can be made to any system to justify what someone wants to do. Perhaps the appeal can be made to situational ethics. The circumstances determine the response. Decisions could be culturally based, varying across societies and generations. Left to this standard we are forced to redefine our concepts of order and chaos.
The case in Canada called into question the proper response to a situation when two systems of absolutes confronted one another if indeed the deaths were not accidental. In this case what constitutes justifiable homicide. Does saving family honor justify killing the one who is seen as bringing shame on the family? Though the defense claimed accidental death, the court decided the family members' deaths were the result of premeditated murder. In other cultures the premeditation would have been seen as justifiable for the sake of family honor. Under Canadian law such reasoning was rejected.
When moral absolutes are allowed to come into conflict, we walk a dangerous path that has an end in "each man did what was right in his own eyes." For a society to remain orderly and not sink into a survival of the fittest, a moral code of absolutes must be established and followed. If change occurs, it cannot be because someone finds the change makes life more convenient. That leads quickly to might makes right. Even when it is the majority who feels that change is necessary, an appeal to the present circumstances can only lead to long term disorder.
How are we to live as Christians in a secular nation in a secular world? A recent survey revealed that 80% of Americans consider themselves Christian. Do all of these 80% follow the same moral absolutes? If not, then what are the bases for the differences and to what authority are they appealing to support their beliefs - the value of the individual, the value of humanity, of creation, the authority of the Divine? Can being Christian in terms of the moral absolutes to which one appeals have so many variations and still be Christian?
Our own country must also struggle with this question. Was our constitution based upon moral absolutes? To what authority do these absolutes appeal? Has that authority changed since the 1780's? If so, are we ready to admit it. If it has changed, what is the authority under which we now operate and does it prescribe moral absolutes?
For the Christian in day to day life, there must be an appeal to moral absolutes that have their ground in divine revelation. By the very definition of absolute, these cannot change on human whim or by changes in situation and circumstances, nor even by human government action. It is the individual who must change, not the law. As surely as each individual nation must decide what will be the absolutes upon which its laws will be based and its society guided, so must every individual for his or her personal behavior. When moral absolutes are rejected by society, then chaos and disorder will reign and the power to say what is right and what is wrong for the common good will reside only in the hands of those willing to use fang and claw.
