In December of 1998, the House impeached President Bill Clinton on charges that he had lied under oath and obstructed justice in order to conceal his past sexual relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. From the time accusations were first made against Clinton in early 1998 until he was finally acquitted by the Senate in February 1999, the scandal drew a frenzy of media attention. News shows provided 24-hour coverage, The Starr Report disclosed intimate details about the affair, and Lewinsky’s photograph was a ubiquitous sight.
Opinion polls offer an intriguing glimpse at the public’s reaction to Clinton’s behavior. Most Americans—70 percent as of August 1998—felt that the president lacked high ethical or moral standards. However, a December 1998 Gallup poll conducted during the impeachment proceedings found that Clinton’s approval rating was at 73 percent, the highest of his presidency. According to a Washington Post poll, half of Americans agreed that as long as the president does a good job, “whatever he does in his personal life is not important.”
Some analysts say that the public’s reluctance to judge Clinton’s behavior is symptomatic of society’s moral relativism— the belief that morality is a matter of individual choice. John F. Kavanaugh, who teaches ethics and religion at St. Louis University, summarizes moral relativism as the attitude that “Who can be so arrogant as to tell others that they are right or wrong?”
Critics assert that the philosophy of moral relativism, because it refuses to support definite moral rules, makes it difficult for people to condemn any behavior, no matter how evil. Philosophy professor Francis Beckwith writes that “If . . . moral and religious life is only a matter of personal tastes, preferences, and orientations . . . , then we cannot tell young people it’s wrong to lie, steal, cheat, abuse drugs, or kill their newborns.”
Furthermore, claim Beckwith and others, moral relativism depends on the belief that God does not exist. As writer Cheryl Borrowdale explains, “Most major world religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, traditionally rely on the supposition that God exists and has set forth moral rules. If, however, God has set forth moral rules, then morality cannot be relative.” According to critics of moral relativism, the laws set down by God provide a code of morality that is absolute and unwavering.
Writer John Hamerlinck contends that relativists are not atheists, but simply believe that moral issues have few absolutes. He offers one scenario as evidence that morality depends upon circumstances: Suppose a murderer were stalking your friend—should you lie to the murderer about your friend’s whereabouts? Hamerlinck asks: “How many people, Christian or otherwise, would not lie in that situation? Is lying therefore an absolute moral wrong? No, because ethics are inescapably situational. Although there is general agreement across the ideological spectrum that lying is wrong, there are still situations in which it is the morally correct thing to do.”
The contrasting philosophies of morality posed by scholars such as Beckwith and Hamerlinck play a role in a wide spectrum of issues. For example, on the issue of sexuality, moral absolutists argue that homosexuality, premarital sex, and adultery are always wrong, since they are prohibited by the Bible, while moral relativists believe that sexuality is a question of personal choice and that individuals are accountable to their own consciences. While individuals ultimately decide what ethical system, if any, they choose to follow, society plays a strong role in determining which values are upheld and which are discouraged. The authors of American Values: Opposing Viewpoints, in the chapters What Values Should America Uphold? Is America in Moral Decline? How Do the Media Influence American Values? and What Measures Would Improve American Values?, provide a variety of perspectives on the state of moral values in American society.