Approve what is good

I recently wrote this post on what standard we use to determine if something is good or not, and I suppose this is a similar concept, but it has been on my mind.

In a recent conversation, someone told me, "I don't need God or the church to tell me what's right or wrong. I have a pretty good moral system without them." Do you see a problem?

I know -- we don't like relativism, but it's not avoidable here. "Good" is a relative term. Something or someone is "good" in relation to something or someone else. As I've said before, a "good dog" and a "good man" are not the same kind of "good". One goes by the standard of dog behaviors and the other by human behaviors. Or let's try this example. Someone tells me, "You know, I'm a pretty good baseball player." I say, "Oh? Why don't you go professional?" "Oh, no," he replies, "I'm not that good." If you look at what he said, you find he's good ... but not. So what was he saying? Well, compared to most people, he's good at baseball, but compared to professionals, he's not. The standard, then, determines "good".

Let's try a biblical example. In Judges 17 (and again in Judges 21), we read this indictment: "Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." We understand that to mean anarchy, lawlessness, much sin. And I'm not denying it. But notice what it actually says: "Everyone did what was right ..." You see, the problem wasn't that people were not willing to do what was right. The problem wasn't that they set out to be evil. They set out to be good -- to do what was right. The problem, then, was not the intent, but standard. They set out to be good ... as determined by "their own eyes". They would say, "We're doing what is right." It's just that their standard was wrong.

So the question I come to is this: How do you determine what "good" is? Moral Relativism is out the window if there is a God, a Divine Lawgiver. He determines what is right. Fine. Our job, then, is to figure out what that is. But we all suffer from deceitful hearts, so it gets ... hazy. Is it right, for instance, to cross a street against the "Walk" sign? What about in the case where, if you don't cross now, you'll miss the bus and be late for work? Is it right to take home pens and paper from work? Is it right to fudge on your taxes when you know you won't get caught? Is it right? How do you determine it?

There is an old story that's been around for awhile. He asks, "Would you be willing to sleep with a man for a million dollars?" She answers, "Well, yes, I suppose I would." He says, "How about for $20?" She answers, "Don't be ridiculous! I'm not a prostitute." "Oh," he replies, "we've already established that you are. Now we're just dickering over price." She wouldn't have thought twice about the morality of having sex for money under normal circumstances. That was wrong! But ... for a million dollars? Somehow ... it changed.

How do you determine what is right? That was my problem with the fellow who told me "I have a pretty good moral system without them." By what standard? Define "good moral system" in a vacuum. To what do you compare that "good" having removed any viable standard? And you, dear reader -- what standard do you use to determine what is "good", "moral", "right"? Is it a sliding scale? Is it relativism? Is it consistent with your talk? Just wondering, you know.