Torturing young helpless babies is not necessarily evil; after all, everything is relative, is it not? Depending on what culture you were raised in or denomination of religion you are, the fact that you torture young helpless babies could be your way of life. The act of torturing babies directly bears upon all of us insofar as, if we agree with and embrace moral relativity, then contrarily, torturing helpless babies would not be an evil act. The denotative definition of evil is “exceeding due measure” or “overstepping proper limits.” Some dictionaries define evil as causing ruin, injury, pain, or harm. Yet, if we compare the denotative definition of evil with societies’ connotative definition, or modern and laxed sense of the word, we discover that evil is truly in the eye of the beholder. Allow me to compare the connotative and denotative definitions of evil by relating them alongside moral and absolute relativity. Would you agree, under the connotative definition, that torturing a young helpless baby is evil? Within the modern definition of evil, embraced by moral relativity, this horrible act would not be considered evil. I expound on this point by saying, people, by and large, believe that they are responsible for their values and responsible for making their own moral rules. If you embrace this viewpoint, then in essence, you are embracing the teaching that says society does not need to be accountable to anyone or anything. We hear of people in our society acting in violence, abandoning their children in dumpsters, and disobeying their parents every day. These common horror stories are not evil under the definition of moral relativism. President Clinton’s moral or immoral act with Monica Lewinsky was not considered evil for many people--including himself--because people have a free right in their western civilization to make moral decisions outside of what others believe. Therefore, the idea of any moral absolute is moot. Moreover, in using this line of thought, torturing young helpless babies is not necessarily evil. The fact is, there is a moral standard, of some sort, that stands outside of a person and judges that individual whether he accepts it or not. Moral absolutes shine a light, forcing to the surface the true evil of moral relativity. I referenced one definition of evil as “overstepping proper limits”; the whole concept of moral relativism is a major overstepping of individual rights. If I torture my newborn son, can I justify this evil act by stating that, because he is my son, I have a parental moral right to discipline him as I wish? It is this type of evil thinking that sends babies to an early grave and gives Presidents the right to lie under oath. There must be some type of absolute standard in our society, a morality that is neither utterly subjective nor utterly selfish. Without this moral absolute, the evil of moral relativity will continue to torture our society by justifying the guilty and condemning the innocent. The bottom line is, we need to fight for moral absolutes in our society, knowing that in our persistence, our children will embrace sound and solid truth and have a clear definition of evil. As we gain ground in this battle for clarity, truth will motivate a child instead of selfish relativism. So, are you morally evil? © 1999 james olmos © 1997 o_jimmy@yahoo.com This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page