Whose Values?

Mark Dunagan
07/10/16 - Sunday Evening

Whose Values?

“One of the most entrenched assumptions of (moral) relativism is that there is such a thing as morally neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where no judgments nor any forcing or personal views are allowed. Each takes a neutral posture towards the moral convictions of others. This is the essence of tolerance, the argument goes.  Moral relativism has become institutionalized in our education system through different forms of instruction in morality that claim to be values-neutral. The most well-known, values clarification, was developed in the mid-60s by social scientists Louis Raths, Sidney Simon, and others. It became very popular and was widely used in public schools during the seventies and early eighties” (“The Myth of Moral Neutrality”, Gregg Koukl, Stand to Reason.Org). 

Values Clarification

Values Clarification was sold or marketed as a way for children to learn how to make moral decisions without sermonizing, without any preaching or moralizing.  What people were told was that the teacher would not impose any of their morals on the students but was helping the students discover the morals or values that were inside them.  The argument was that the teacher would be “neutral” and it would be up to the students to solve this or that moral dilemma.  Those involved in this practice would defend it by saying, "We're not pushing our views or imposing our values.”  "We're careful to let the students know that it's up to them to decide what to do. This is 'value free' instruction. We're neutral."

An Example

One example of values clarification is the following scenario.  Children are asked to solve this problem. An aged man had taken the life of his seriously ailing wife to put her out of her misery. He was being tried for murder. Should he be punished for his "mercy killing," or should he go free?

Inherent Problems

• In many values clarification exercises all the options or all the information is not given to the children.For example, there are far more choices we have in the above example than either sit by and watch someone suffer in pain or kill them.There is hospice, there is prayer, there are many pain relieving medications, pain management and so on.
• Such an example also fails to inform the children about suffering.Just because one is experiencing suffering or discomfort does not give one the right to do something sinful.Our children need to learn that there will be a lot of discomfort and suffering and that seeking to opt out because something is hard at the moment is a very unwise and foolish choice (James 1:2-4; 1 Peter 1:6).
• The children are equally being told to look in the wrong place for their values or morals.Frequently they are told to look within themselves, to base their decision on how they feel and what they think.Yet the Bible makes it very clear that we are not born with a preset moral compass within us (Jeremiah 10:23).That our feelings can easily direct us down a sinful path (Proverbs 14:12).And that, when it comes to any one young, foolishness needs to be removed from the hearts (Proverbs 22:15), and they need to be taught about God’s values (Ephesians 6:4). This is true for every generation.Every generation of young people has been urged to seek and cry out for discernment (Proverbs 2:3).
• Another problem is that children are given moral problems but they are not given any tools to help them discern good from evil (Hebrews 5:14; Psalm 119:104). At the very least such an instructor should say, “Here are some good books on morals to read, they have been considered important by all previous generations and one is head and shoulders above the others, upon which many of our laws are based, it is the Bible.
• The order of learning is all mixed up in such examples.Asking kids about the morality of life and death decisions is like deciding to teach First Graders physics instead of simple addition or asking them to comprehend sentence structure before they learn the ABC’s.
• Then what is the personal application?What I am supposed to learn in such a discussion?Because most students will not face in the near future anything close to some of the examples they are often given.So what is the application?Is it that any suffering or discomfort allows us to ignore the rules?Is the lesson that I am allowed to take my own life if I am suffering or depressed?What did the children really learn in such a exercise?

“What are values clarification exercises meant to teach? That there are difficult ethical circumstances in which the lines are not clear and the solutions are ambiguous? We already know that. No, these exercises go further. They imply that because some circumstances are ethically ambiguous, there are no ethical certainties at all” (Greg Koukl).   Sadly what is often learned is that a choice is good, healthy, or wise if its outcome is pleasing to the individual. A choice is bad, unhealthy, or unwise if it results in unfavorable consequences.

The Myth of Value Free Learning

“Philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers exposes the moral confusion of values clarification in this true story she relates: One of my favorite anecdotes concerns a teacher in Newton, Massachusetts, who had attended numerous values clarification workshops and was assiduously applying its techniques in her class. The day came when her class of sixth graders announced that they valued cheating and wanted to be free to do it on their tests. The teacher was very uncomfortable. Her solution? She told the children that since it was her class and since she was opposed to cheating, they were not free to cheat. ‘In my class you must be honest, for I value honesty. In other areas of your life you may be free to cheat’”. 

Think about this response for a moment. Does the teacher's solution follow from the instruction on values clarification she has just given to her students? Of course not. If the teacher values honesty, then she should be honest without imposing her values on her students. They should still decide for themselves, which they had. At best, the instructor is stuck in a contradiction. When faced with the destructive consequences of relativism, she falls back into imposing her morality on her students--the very thing she's been teaching against. At worst, the teacher's lesson is that power is the ultimate element in morality, that might makes right: ‘I give the grades. If you cheat, I'll flunk you.’  Technically, this is called the fallacy of argumentum ad baculum, or to paraphrase Mao Tse Tung, ‘persuasion from the barrel of a gun’” (Greg Koukl).

Many have noted that values clarification is anything but neutral.  There are actually many areas of bias:

• Such exercises are all too often designed to get the kids to adopt a very morally liberal point of view.
• The possible solutions to the moral dilemmas posed to students are often limited to the most liberal options.Never is the option given, “Maybe they should pray and read Scripture”.Or, “Maybe they should just be patient”.“Or, maybe they should endure”.Or, “Maybe they should say no”.
• Such exercises often focus on the individual in isolation from family and society.That is, the woman dying in the above illustration is not pictured as having any children or grandchildren or friends.Rather, it is just the man and his dying wife, as if people just live in a vacuum.
• The option that is often pushed is the option that brings instant relief or gratification.

Jesus

Let’s just remember that Jesus was the master teacher and that He did a lot of moralizing.  He clearly defined right and wrong.  Even His parables had a definite point and a definite conclusion.  He did not leave anything morally fuzzy.

The Deception of Tolerance 

Constantly the Bible warns us about not being deceived:

• 1 Corinthians 6:9
• 1 Corinthians 15:33
• Galatians 6:7
• James 1:16

What many have noted about people today who view themselves very open-minded and tolerant is that they are just the opposite.  True tolerance in a society would mean that:

• Creation is taught along side with the Theory of Evolution and no one tries to sue the school.
• At an abortion clinic there are counselors present who would present another alternative.That the option of either keeping the baby or opting for adoption would be an alternative.
• That in the college classroom, if the Biblical perspective is presented, it is presented without ridicule.For the Biblical perspective has been held by some of the most educated and skilled thinkers of the ages.

Mark Dunagan | mdunagan@frontier.net
Beaverton Church of Christ | 503-644-9017
www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net