Moral Contradictions
by Pastor Matthew E. Walker, 3 February 2012

Is it wrong to tell a lie? In the early 1990’s a groundbreaking book on American culture, The Day America Told The Truth, released the results of their poll that indicated nearly 93% of Americans lie regularly. Of course such a question is self defeating as it is impossible to know if those answering were telling the truth or not. However, assuming the number to be approximately accurate it appears that the vast majority of Americans are liars. So is it wrong?

President Bill Clinton lied under oath in the mid-1990’s and was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives. While the Senate chose to acquit the President, it was obvious to most Americans that the President was a liar. One of his main arguments in response is that he lied to protect his family and many accepted this rationale. While concluding the President lied many Americans also concluded that he was justified in doing so. He was wrong but not wrong. Doesn’t that seem morally contradictory?

Contradictions like these come from the clash between our cultural understanding of truth and objective truth. For this reason most have a difficult time “judging” something or someone else. In fact, in our culture judging is itself wrong. It has been deemed good and right to be tolerant of other viewpoints even ones that our conscience or moral code indicate clearly are wrong ones. Consequently, the conventional wisdom regards truth as being relative. This philosophical conclusion, however, contradicts practical considerations. Experience teaches us that truth is not relative but objective. When the pilot checks his fuel gauge and realizes that there is not enough fuel in the tanks he responds by having someone at the airport fuel his plane. When a pharmacist gives instructions on how to take prescription medication it is best to follow those instructions carefully. When the bottle is labeled “rat poison” it isn’t brought out at a dinner party for people to put into their glasses. People may say that they believe that truth is relative but, practically speaking, they live as if it is not.

So how are these moral contradictions explained? The question is not one of truth but of authority. If the druggist tells me not to take more than one pill or the side affects could be harmful I choose to listen to him because I invest in him medical authority. When the plane’s fuel gauge is indicating low fuel I respond to it because I have invested authority in that fuel gauge. When a person tells a lie and I choose to ignore it or justify it my choice is not based on morality or truth but on the basis of authority. I know the lie is wrong objectively but I simply do not care. The lie is an immoral act but I choose, based on my own authority, to ignore it. My choice does not change the reality of truth.

Here’s a present day example. In early 2012 PETA (People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals) will be sponsoring a billboard in Los Angeles that features actress Olivia Munn. Apparently she is angry with those in Hollywood who buy and wear fur. She recently said this to a reporter: "It makes me think when I see it. It's shocking to me because I think one of two things: either you just don't know any better, or you know better and you're just that callous,…It's a surprising thing. I also think, 'Oh, the other day you looked so pretty and you weren't wearing fur. Do you have to wear fur tonight?' I really don't understand when somebody knows better and they don't do better."

In Ms. Munn’s moral code it is wrong to buy or wear fur. She objects to the manner in which the animals who produce the fur are being treated and, probably, the fact that they are being used this way at all. In her mind wearing fur is wrong and she leaves no room for a difference of opinion. She thinks people know better but choose to wear fur anyway. “I really don’t understand when somebody knows better and they don’t do better.” She is troubled by the disconnect between knowledge and action, at least as it relates to fur. Yet this is the problem with modernity’s construction of morality. What she has determined is immoral is not immoral to others. She can be her own authority and therefore, construct her own moral code, but she gets angry when others do the same. It is difficult when moral codes based on a subjective view of the truth clash with each other.

The best part of this example is how Ms. Munn is advertising her anger. She is pictured on these giant billboards completely naked. Her image is accompanied by the slogan: “I’d rather go naked than wear fur.” Fox News reported that the original image for these billboards was so risqué that governmental leaders in Los Angeles objected. You can imagine how bad it must have been. The image that appears on these billboards presently is bad enough leaving little to the imagination. In her mind it is bad to wear fur but not bad to wear nothing.

So is it wrong to buy or wear a fur coat? There may be some objective moral grounds for Ms. Munn’s concerns. The Bible teaches that God created man to have dominion over the earth. The question of the fur industry does push the limits on this subject of dominion. It is morally objectionable to mistreat or torture animals. If the fur industry is truly mistreating animals then that is an immoral act and should be stopped. However, it is also morally objectionable to pose nude for a photographer and support a cause by allowing your naked body appear on a giant billboard. The determination of the moral objection is not personal. I do not determine this myself. This offends God. That Ms. Munn would appear publically naked in doing so is, in itself, offensive. It is wrong to lie and it is wrong to appear naked in protesting liars. That’s not me saying so. That’s not on my authority. That is God’s Word.