One of the most pressing issues of our day is that of moral standards. What absolutes impose the limits of freedom? What givens determine what is right and what is wrong?
There are some people who say that there are no absolutes in life. They reject all moral standards completely. They claim freedom on all matters of morals and live only for pleasure. Their motto seems to be “I do what I want.” French author and philospher Jean-Paul Sartre is probably the best-known exponent of this view. He believed that there is no God and thus all guidelines are irrelevant except that of freedom. His philosophy, of course, leads ultimately to living only for pleasure.
This was the philosophy of Hugh Hefner, former editor of Playboy magazine. He took a recreational view of sex. Women may be used like an attractive, expensive accessory and then, like any other accessory, be replaced next year when fashions change. They are treated as mere instruments of pleasure. If you doubt the popularity of this idea, please note that the Playboy magazine once had a readership greater than the subscription lists of all the scholarly journals combined.
There is no logical foundation for this basis of morality. Man is a responsible moral being. Absolute freedom is absolute nonsense. The plain fact is that virtually everybody feels a sense of right and wrong when he’s the subject of something he doesn’t like. He may readily justify his actions by rejecting all laws, but when the tables are turned he will protest, “It is not fair.” If, as Hemingway said, “What is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after,” Hitler could have told himself that slaughtering the Jews was a moral act because it made him feel happy.
This view of morality is the natural fruit of a life cut off from God. If there were no God, all would be allowable.
But there is a God.