Moral
Equivalence
Charlie Earl
Not all
correct answers are equal. A logically correct answer to a pressing problem may
not be the best alternative available, and sometimes, what seems to be the best
answer may, in fact, be an immoral solution. A friend of mine who is a pastor
told me that one of his most frustrating tasks was counseling married couples
following an affair by one or both of the parties. When he spoke with them
individually, the offender would often attempt to justify her/his actions by
claiming that the affair and the interloper were so much better than the
marriage. In some cases to his chagrin they would state that God must approve
of dissolving their marriage and beginning a new life with the other person
because they were so happy when they were together. This is an example of one
type of moral equivalence. If happiness is moral and comes from God, then an
immoral or unethical act must be “OK” because the participant is happy. Happiness
becomes the equalizer or equivalizer for determining what is moral.
If someone
performs an immoral action and appears to get away with it, then others may
believe they’re entitled to a similar or less drastic action because they’re a
better person than the original actor. Immorality is justified because the
judge or second actor measures the “immoral-ness” of the behavior on a relative
scale. “Not-as-bad-as-“ replaces good as the standard of comparison. It is
rather like children squabbling in the back seat of a car. You, the driver,
detect increased noise and fury. You inquire about the problem and are informed
that “he pinched me.” “He” responds with “she hit me first” whereupon she
counters with he was moving into “my space.” Escalating moral equivalence rules
the day in the back seat of the royal minivan. Childish reactions to childish
behavior… just like occurs in the vaunted halls of power.
Relativism
has invaded all aspects of our lives. On a personal level relativism is an
internal negotiation with God and the community. We know what is right and
moral yet we attempt to justify actions or thoughts that are contrary to God’s
law and community standards. Hypocrisy is the most obvious indicator of relativistic
line. We sense a need for rigid standards, but personally believe that our
actions should be exempt.
Communities
and governments, on the other hand, see no need for exemptions because they do
not recognize the necessity of internal moral and behavioral regulators. They
rely on force to ensure the type of behavior they deem most desirable.
Governments have no internal conflicts between the “moral” and the “practical.”
The root definition of moral equivalency is that one side of a conflict uses it
to justify their actions against a foe. “If our atrocities are bad, they are
not as bad as theirs.” Evil and immoral acts are justified because they are
less heinous than the alternative. Sounds like government….all big governments
in all systems: despots, tyrants, monarchs and statists of all stripes. The
force used by government is always morally justified in their views because
their way is the only right way. In essence….the concept of morality is
incidental or, at best, relative. Because governments, groups and other
entities have no minds, hearts and souls, morality cannot be an absolute….either
right or wrong. For them all behavior on their behalf is justifiable because
they have the power to enforce their will. It is somewhat ironic that some
statists decry the so-called immorality of America when the notion of morality
is always absent in the state. Morality and moral behavior are advanced by
individuals not the government. A state or government can be moral only when
the people as individuals behave morally. When the state becomes too large and
oppressive the INDIVIDUAL desires and behaviors of the citizens have little or
no impact on the conduct of public affairs.
The best and
only solution for a government or society that is overrun by immorality is an
organizational structure wherein EACH individual has the capacity and the
responsibility for making moral decisions. The Founders and the Framers had it
right, and we squandered it away.
Charlie Earl
