Relatively Speaking, Whose Morals Apply?

When a group of American graduate students traveled to Europe for a symposium on international education two summers ago, their host, who was from the Netherlands, nonchalantly shared his views about free sex. He stated that teen-agers in many European countries were openly given condoms and that his own son had brought a girl home at the age of 15 to spend the night.

When several of us in the group (all of whom were Texas-based educators) expressed disgust with his ideas, he asked, "Is your (American) way working? Have you reduced teen-age pregnancy? We have little teen-age pregnancy because of condoms, abortion and the idea that sex is not forbidden."

We were not convinced he was right. Most of us held traditional views, believing there are certain moral values about right and wrong. It was easy to see, however, that our European host believed in the rightness of his position and that we were wrong to hold fast to our conservative notions of morality.

In another country on our tour, we observed photographs of nude adults on the walls of elementary classrooms, something that would be forbidden in the United States. Yet the European teachers and students seemed to take no note of the presence of the nude images as if they had been posted on the bulletin board for the entire school year.

We also discovered designated smoking areas in many European schools for teachers and students, and free time was provided for use of those areas. In the United States, smoking on a school campus and in many other public places is against the law, and smoking is discouraged for reasons of personal and public health.

Is Everything Relative?

While it wasn't necessarily part of the course objectives, my graduate student classmates and I learned a close-up lesson in moral relativism. This philosophy suggests there are no universally objective right or wrong answers on moral issues, no inappropriate or appropriate judgments and no reasonable or rational ways by which to make moral distinctions apply to all situations. You might restate this view in the form of an old adage: When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Cultural relativism is the doctrine that the moral rightness (and wrong ness) of actions varies from society to society and that no absolute universal moral standards bind all people at all times. Whether it is right for an individual to act in a certain way depends on, or is relative to, the society to which he or she belongs. What is considered morally right or wrong must be seen in a context, depending on the goals, wants, beliefs, history and environment of the society in question. If moral principles differ from culture to culture and if all morality is rooted in culture, it follows there are no universal moral principles that are valid for all cultures and all people at all times.

In line with this thinking, contemporary American society espouses relativity with statements such as "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," "To each his own" or "Different strokes for different folks." Perhaps this explains why our schools today seem to teach few or no moral values--because no one knows what they are anymore! Teachings of political correctness and measures that avoid stepping on anyone's toes may have brought our schools to the point of not recognizing what is or is not morally acceptable in our own culture.

The Naked Truth

Consider this true scenario: A German exchange student enrolled to spend a year in a high school in central Texas in 1996. She was a beautiful young girl with an attractive figure and a vivacious personality. Not long after arriving in this country, she joined a group of local students on a weekend trip to the Colorado River to float on inner tubes.

As the hot Texas sun rose higher and moved across the sky, the young men and women poured water over their bodies to keep cool. It was then the young German girl removed the top of her bathing suit to soak up the rays of the sun and to allow her body to be exposed to the water. Students reacted uncomfortably and she replaced her suit.

Relatively speaking, was she wrong to act the way she did? In her mind, she had done nothing unacceptable because her behavior was appropriate in the society she was reared. (Side note: The same young woman was selected football sweetheart the next week over the many contestants who had spent their entire lives in that school district, and some parents objected because of her behavior the week before.)

So what is the right response? Most of us would agree she did nothing wrong when viewed from the perspective of her upbringing, but her prompt correction prevented her situation from being morally unacceptable in this small central Texas town.

Meaningless Concepts

As educators, should we teach that anything is acceptable just because someone feels it is morally correct? Or do you believe a relativistic moral system--in a vain attempt to satisfy everyone--is destroying the values of our own society? If relativism is true, we could expect to live in a society in which nothing is universally wrong and nothing is considered evil or good. Justice and fairness would become meaningless concepts with no accountability and no possibility of moral improvement.

With major tragedies happening in our schools today, clearly educators cannot accept that a student's actions are only relative to a situation. Character education involving morals and values must be taught to train students to live and work in a civilized society.

Shirley Ellisor is primary school head at Saint Mary's Hall,