Disturbing Implications: Accounting for Morality Through Sociobiology

While I was running this week, I was listening to a Stand to Reason podcast (www.str.org) with host Greg Koukl. His guest, Brian Godawa, was talking about a couple of his projects as a Christian screenwriter, producer, and documentary maker.* One of the issues that was discussed was moral relativism, which the clip below addresses in an impactful way.

This is a 7 minute clip of what will be released as a full length feature film titled Cruel Logic. Among other themes such as the problem of evil, Cruel Logic explores the nature of morality. This clip powerfully shows that ideas have consequences, as one of the characters points out in a disturbing way.

For those not familiar with the sociobiolgical theory of morality, its proponents believe that morals are a result of social evolution. Morals are the result of our gene's felt need for them, not something objective and external to us. For instance, philosopher Michael Ruse, believes that morals are an illusion that our genes have foisted on us because we need to believe in morality in order to live together since we have become social beings. In other words, we need to believe there are objective morals, so our genes make us believe there are objective morals. Those tricky genes! (One could ask how Ruse has risen above the illusion to discover the truth; and now that he's exposed it, why any of us should accept the illusion and its morals any longer?)

As you watch this clip, notice how there is no valid reason why the serial killer should not kill based on the sociobiological theory...we are just products of our genes. It is an extreme case, but the point is there is nothing to stop one from going to this extreme if he or she chooses. Watch as this serial killer follows sociobiology all the way to its natural conclusion.



As Christians, we know that morals come from the one perfectly moral lawgiver, God. As such, morals are an external, objective standard of right and wrong that is binding on all humans at all times. Any other way of accounting for morality is subjective and relative and leaves us no room to claim anything right or wrong, which is a very bad place to be.

*Brian Godawa also wrote the award-winning The End of Wars which starred Keifer Sutherland, and a new documentary on stem cell research titled Lines That Divide,to name a few. You can find out more about him and his projects at www.godawa.com

Conversation With a Moral Relativist

Moral Absolutist: Man, it's been a busy week! It's so nice to sit and relax. I'm glad we could hang out this afternoon.

Moral Relativist: Me too. And I love this coffee shop. Let's get those chairs over in the corner by the window.

Absolutist: (sits) So what did you do this weekend?

Relativist: Oh, normal stuff - visited the parents, caught a movie...Oh, and I went to this lecture at school with my roommate. He had to go and talked me into tagging along. You wouldn't have believed this guy!

Absolutist: Why? What was the lecture about?

Relativist: Well...look, I know you're a Christian, so no offense, but this guy was way overboard. His whole lecture was about how morals are absolute and objective and since they're absolute people don't get to decide for themselves how they should live...He really had me irritated!

Absolutist: Why?

Relativist: Because he shouldn't be up there spewing his views and telling everyone else they're wrong if they don't agree with his morals! What makes him think he's got it all figured out? Who is he to judge the choices and morals of anyone else?

Absolutist: What do you mean by "judge"?

Relativist: Just what he was doing! Telling someone else they're wrong just because they don't agree with you - because it isn't the choice you would have made.

Absolutist: But aren't you saying he is wrong?

Relativist: He is! He can't tell other people what their morals should be. *
Absolutist: But think about it a minute. He believes in absolute morals. You believe in moral relativism - everyone chooses what's right for them - so why not let him choose the moral system that he thinks is right? Instead, you appear to be judging him.

Relativist: But believing that there are moral absolutes is intolerant of other people's morals that don't agree with those absolutes. *

Absolutist: But under the umbrella of moral relativism, it's still his right to choose what's right for him, and you can't hold to moral relativism on the one hand and "judge" him for being wrong on the other. You get that, don't you? But you also said moral absolutism is intolerant. What do you mean by "intolerant"?

Relativist: I mean he's intolerant because he doesn't accept other people's view points and moral choices. I mean he should be more tolerant of other people.

Absolutist: But tolerance implies that I do not accept the thing I am tolerating. After all, I don't have to tolerate a good cup of coffee if I enjoy coffee; I don't have to tolerate you since you're my friend and I like hanging out with you; I don't have to tolerate views which I accept. I only have to tolerate something that I do not agree with or accept. The historical definition of "tolerance" is putting up with error, not acceptance of all views. But let's say tolerance did mean acceptance of all views...aren't you being intolerant of the lecturer's views?

Relativist: (laughs) I think it may be too early for this conversation!

Absolutist: Just pointing out the inconsistencies, my friend. Think about it this way: That's your $15 laying there isn't it? Change from your coffee?

Relativist: Yeah.

Absolutist: That guy outside has been playing the guitar for spare change ever since we got here - probably all morning. I'm just going to give your $15 to him. He really looks like he could use the help.

Relativst: (grabs at the money) That's nice of you, (laughs) but I'm a poor college student myself!

Absolutist: Yeah, still seems like the right thing to do for me, and since I don't have any more cash on me myself, I'll use yours. (Gets up with the money)

Relativst: You can't just take my money!

Absolutist: But I'm deciding what's right for me. Surely you can appreciate that! Please don't judge my choices.

Relativst: But...! Just hold on!

to be continued...

* Remember ~ when talking with a skeptic/unbeliever, they may make many statements or assertions. Assertions are statements given as if no evidence is needed. They are not arguments and as such, you do not need to refute them. The skeptic/unbeliever has to account for and give evidence for his assertions, so draw him/her out by asking him to explain or clarify his/her position; or ask why s/he believes that or where s/he heard it. Anything to see if they have thought through what they are stating and to give you something to refute is what you're looking for.