Once again, I have been reminded of the current view that Character is relative. Children should not, many say, be taught character in a way that makes them believe moral absolutes exist. They should be given a possible meaning of each character trait, and allowed to work out their own moral values.
Amazingly, the same student who, after forty-eleven lessons, cannot comprehend that 2 + 2 = 4 every time is expected to work out a complete set of moral values! Astounding, isn’t it? Johnny can’t read, and Johnny can’t do mathematics, but somehow Johnny has the wisdom to work out a set of moral values that he will use throughout life.
Teachers lead students to believe that an action is good if it makes you and those around you happy. It is “character” if society approves it. It is evil “lack of character” if anyone around you disapproves.
This cannot be true, and should never be taught.
If Character is relative, we must have as many moral codes as there are human beings on the planet. Think of it! If you live in a country with a population of 300 million, there must be 300 million moral codes by which people regulate their actions. There cannot be any written national law if character is relative. There can only be personal laws by which each person lives. The wisdom of each person’s moral code must be determined by that individual’s ability to reason. Not only that, the moral code can be changed on a whim.
Suppose a student forms his or her own set of moral values and finds that society does not approve of them. He or she may determine that society is right, and change one or more values. Or the determination may be that society is wrong, and the student is right. In the ultimate analysis, the student will decide what “honesty” will mean to him or her. The student will decide the importance of “fairness” in his or her own life. The determination may or may not agree with the majority’s view.
If Character is relative, and children are encouraged to develop their own sets of moral values, they will always slant them toward self comfort. Adults would do the same. Whatever makes self happy and secure, whatever makes life easy for self is the choice that would be made. The adult how-to book, Character, shows how this type of thinking affects our society.
If Character is relative, we all become our own witnesses. We all become our own prosecutors, judges, juries, and jailers. If you perform an action that breaks your own, personal moral code, you judge yourself. No one else can judge you, because they live by a different moral code. If you somehow manage to be so totally honest that you find yourself guilty, you must place yourself behind bars. If the personal moral code you have broken is vile enough, you must put yourself to death – or find a “loophole” to escape it.
To some people, this appears to be a sound, logical approach to Character. After all, they reason, we cannot sit in judgment on one another, since we each have a different set of moral values.
The sad truth is that if Character is relative, we must open every prison in the world and turn the inmates into the streets. We must stop all wars, since no one side can be right. We must close courts, dismiss national law-making bodies and judicial bodies, disbar all lawyers, and close law enforcement agencies. Remove highway signs, and other “legal” signage. Forbid principals, teachers, parents, and other adults to ever punish a child for “disobedience” if character is relative. After all, in the child’s eyes, he or she is adhering to personal moral values.
Happily, character is not relative! Character is based on moral absolutes, and we should be teaching them strongly to every child.
That’s the view from my chair. What’s your view?