Virtue Ethics & Relativism

The threat of Virtue Ethics in a secular culture

Tolerance has become a buzz word of late. Some people believe that tolerance is the only way to live a moral life, while others think morality is an absolute, that is to say morality is universal across time and space. There's one ethical system called "relativism", which says that an action is moral or immoral, right or wrong, based on the individual and the culture they grew up in. Going back further is Virtue Ethics, which was introduced back in the ancient days of Classical Greece, by Plato and Aristotle, who said that morality was universally based on the character of the individual. Outside of the Christian Ethical system, virtue ethics is the next best system that I have studied, but should only be put into practice by a non-believer.

Today, on Answering the Call, we are going to discuss the threat of relativism disguised as virtue ethics in our modern culture.

I thought I knew my ethical worldview. And then I took this class. I am partially ashamed to say it is an Intro to Ethics course. Ashamed because it's an intro class and already changing and challenging my viewpoints. Only partially because I am glad any new information and insights are able to stretch and challenge what I thought I previously knew. For example, at one point I told a friend that the best socio-economic system is one that produces the largest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. He scoffed and said, "Like, for the greater good?" and I replied, "Yeah, but like the greatest good." And then he informed me that he was quoting Grindelwald and Dumbledore's slogan from Harry Potter, the slogan they used to rationalize why they had the power to rule over those without magical abilities.

At the time, I brushed it off and thought to myself, "Well, any form of tyranny isn't, and can't be good, so just because they were using that argument to rationalize it doesn't make it morally right." And then in this class we studied an ethical system called, "Utilitarianism", which, quite literally is for the greatest amount of good for the largest amount of people. Moral decisions are made based on the expected consequences of a decision, not whether or not the action itself is a moral one. Utilitarianism is popular for government and politics, but is also frowned upon because of its inherent inability to do good for minority groups.

While I was reading and studying all of this, all of these systems, I quickly realized that I needed to evaluate my own ethical system, my own intellectual worldview. Making moral choices based on the results is not aligned with the Christian ethical system at all. It's quite different.

It does make you think: What is morality? Is it a set of universal standards across time and space? Or is it relative to where a person grew up? The culture they endured, the way they were raised? What ought a person do?

I would argue in favor of absolutism: that moral standards are universal throughout the world, and cannot be explained by relativism. Under relativism, a person can justify any act conceivable by saying they grew up in a culture that honored that. Which could explain some terrible choices an individual, or group, could make, but it doesn't explain or even allow us to describe evil. Under relativism, all we have is preference, not good and evil.

The opposite of relativism is absolutism, which states, again, that moral actions and truth are the same everywhere. Cultural norms can still be taken into account, because they are not on the same level as a moral choice. For example, in American culture it is considered polite, and expected, to tip servers. In other cultures and places, tipping can be considered rude. This is not a moral difference, but one of norms.

Within the realm of absolutism, there are different ethical systems, such as deontological systems or teleological systems. I won't bore you by going into all of the different systems in detail. However, there are two different systems that I think are of equal threat: virtue ethics and relativism.

Rationalism has its birth with Immanuel Kant, who believed that everything can be derived through reason. This view was quickly debunked, and there was a return to a more virtue-based system such as what Plato & Aristotle put forth. They believed that it wasn't actions themselves that were moral, but rather where the soul of the person was - their character. Are you a good person?

This argument is close, so close, to a Christian Ethic worldview that it almost hurts. As Paul writes in Ephesians 2:8-9, "For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift -- not from works, so that no one can boast." Similar to Aristotle and Plato, Paul is telling us that Jesus doesn't care about our acts themselves, but who were are as a person. Jesus tells us to be perfect. But Virtue ethics falls short because it is based solely on this arbitrary definition of "be a good person". And God tells us over and over, it is not enough to be a good person. Jesus calls us to believe in Him.

Virtue ethics is borderline deceitful. If all it takes in life is to be a good person, then everyone, in their own mind, is a good person. I hear secular individuals all the time talk about the "vibes" other people give off. And we hear terms like, "your truth" and "my truth". It's complete nonsense. It's virtue-signaling. And worse, it's using the cover of virtue-ethics to slip in relativism: "I am a good person, by my own standards". What prevents people from using that argument?

Instead, we ought to focus on a Christian Ethics system. It lives and breathes inside each of us, given to us when God gave us the breath of life in Genesis 2. In us is the natural law, which all created beings naturally follow, and then we received the breath of life, which provided for us the moral law - that we have the power of choice, but we know, innately, what the right choice to make is. But we sinned, and we continue sinning to this day. The Christian Ethics system provides for us the only correct ethical system because it flows from who God is as being. It's the standard he's passed down to us as part of his character.

Virtue ethics, on the other hand, while it is under the "ethical absolutism" branch, has its short falls. Under virtue ethics, you ought to be a good person, it doesn't matter if you serve God or not. And in our culture is increasingly accepting tolerance as a virtue. Tolerance of others, other cultures, other upbringings, other perspectives. Tolerance is the key to any type of relativism - but because it's seen as a virtue, under the guise of "be a good person", then it's viewed as a viable ethical system for one to use, and they are able to sneak in their relativism, under the absolute belief (or virtue) of tolerance of anything but whatever it is they decide is evil.

Relativism is dead; it holds no place in philosophical study as a viable ethical system by any standards. It falls apart quickly because it is easy to use the framework to justify any horrific, immoral actions: all a person has to do is say their actions were justified because of their culture/upbringing. This is not a good way to live in society. We need standards by which all people can accept, which then guides our legal system to pursue justice. The Christian Ethical system is not one for the state, but applies to individuals seeking Christ and therefore is the maximum to which they would follow - and following the Christian ethical system means following all applicable moral laws, but not necessarily immoral ones. If worship of the Almighty is outlawed, then Christians can break the law and still be moral. A seemingly viable option for the non-believers is the Virtue-ethics systems, however it has pitfalls in that our culture is becoming more and more accepting of all ways of life, even ones that immoral, simply because we have moved the goal posts of what is considered moral. Tolerance has become the key word, that we ought to be accepting of all walks of life. Tolerance has become a virtue, one desired in our culture. Tolerance has therefore been used to shoe-horn relativism into the mainstream ethical systems. Instead, the Christian-ethical system is the only way to live a moral life; a life in service to God is the moral one.

Discipline is a virtue not found among many people, especially in today’s world. We have entertainment, food, and any pleasure at our fingertips all day long. One example of this was when I was on a flight from one place to another, and shortly before take off they announced that the WiFi was out and could not be accessed. While we were in the sky, however, the guy next to me pulled out his phone and tried to load Instagram a few times every minute. The entire flight he did this. He kept pulling down the screen to get the feed refreshed, but it just wouldn’t… he didn’t have service. But he couldn’t stop himself. He had no control over this impulse.

Now, this is a pretty extreme example. But it isn’t much different than my habit of watching YouTube shorts for awhile before going to bed. Or my habit of staying in bed until the last possible second so I am only barely late to work, instead of being five to ten minutes early. Discipline is a difficult trait/virtue to attain and keep.

Additionally, the people you might think are disciplined, might not be so disciplined. I thought my oldest brother Keaton was extremely disciplined because he never ate unhealthy foods.¹ Until one day I learned the secret: he just didn’t buy unhealthy food. If candy wasn’t in the house, he didn’t eat it. He couldn’t. My wife and I do the same thing with bread. I do it with social media. If I don’t have the apps on my phone, is it really discipline?

It’s kind of like putting something a toddler wants out of reach. They literally can’t access it, so they can’t have a problem with it. Does that count?

Well, not really. Discipline is something like being able to say “No” constantly. Now, to be sure, the Bible does talk a lot about temperance, which is key to the ‘everything in moderation’ rule. Drinking alcohol is not a sin, but being drunk is. Obsession is a sin, just as well, and is a result of a lack of temperance.

Discipline has its place, and is by no means a bad trait. It is something to aim for. It is something to be cultivated. I believe that discipline is a byproduct, not the sole aim.

Responsibility, on the other hand, is something else. It is a direct calling in the Scriptures.

God tells Job to “Gird up” his loins like a man. Part of being a man is to take responsibility. God was answering Job’s questions. So it was kind of like, “You asked, here’s the answer, take it like a man.”

And to follow Jesus’ words:

Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.” Luke 9:23

Jesus’ calling for each of His followers is to deny themselves (temperance) and then take up their cross, which is to accept responsibility for our walk with Christ. We take responsibility for our lives: our actions, our choices, and everything in between.

Additionally, responsibility is spoken about by my favorite psychologist, Viktor Frankl, in his landmark book, “Man’s Search for Meaning”:

“Freedom, however, is not the last word. Freedom is only part of the story and half of the truth. Freedom is but the negative aspect of the whole phenomenon whose positive aspect is responsibleness. In fact, freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness. That is why I recommend that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast.”

— Viktor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning

Here at The Modern Quest, we are building that Statue of Responsibility. One post, one day at a time.

Responsibility means you acknowledge that you are in control and in charge of certain aspects of your life and it is your sacred duty to be a good steward of those things.

And once you realize that, once you accept responsibility for your life, then discipline will follow.

What are the things in your life you need to accept responsibility for and what are the steps you need to take for responsibility to become a reality?

1. At least not while he was competing in Crossfit.