Moral Relativism

I recently completed a survey for the BSA regarding a potential change in the membership policy. One of the questions is this: What is your greatest concern if the policy is changed to allow charter organizations to make their own decisions to admit openly gay Scouts and leaders? 

As I pondered how to answer that question and how to explain my concerns I realized that my biggest concerns are centered around the concept of moral relativism. That idea is essentially that different people have different ideas about what is right and what is wrong. A more extreme version, and where the trouble really starts, is that no one moral view is any better than any other. It seems to me that a change in policy would promote this idea. I do not believe it makes sense for an organization which maintains that we have a duty to God to embrace moral relativism.

The BSA's Declaration of Religious Principle states that "no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God." Furthermore this declaration states: "The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members. No matter what the religious faith of the members may be, this fundamental need of good citizenship should be kept before them."

While the BSA remains nonsectarian, the wording given in this declaration implies certain beliefs. First, that there exists a single divine being who we all worship. We may understand Him and worship Him differently, but He is the same for each of us. As we strive to follow his rule to the best of our ability we will be led in correct paths by Him.

Second, that He is "the ruling and leading power in the universe" and that we acknowledge "His favors and blessings." If we accept that God is the ruling and leading power in the universe, then we must accept that He has made rules and laws for us to follow. This also implies some sort of judgement following this life based on our choosing whether or not to follow His law. For over 100 years, the BSA has acknowledged those rules and laws include prescriptions of moral behavior.

I do not know how an organization can explicitly state that God is the ruling and leading power in the universe, that we have a duty to Him, and that it's members pledge to be morally clean and yet state that morals are relative. It doesn't work. In my opinion it could lead to the erosion of every other value we have.

I really like the statement from the American Buddhist monk Bhikkhu Bodhi: "By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view, as I mentioned earlier, threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, I do not think mere moral exhortation is sufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality" (emphasis added).

I understand that some will say that the BSA remains non-sectarian (which is true) and that religious training, including what is moral and what is not, should be left to the home and church. I also understand that some churches do not teach that homosexual behavior is sinful (despite the fact that every religious text I know of says otherwise). I get that. And in a way, it makes sense to allow chartered organizations to decide for themselves.

But my conscience tells me that making the proposed change to the membership policy would be wrong. I believe with all my heart that God is against it.