Moral decision-making, Lewinsky style
1998-01-30

Well, here we are in the midst of another White House scandal and another media feeding frenzy. And here I am writing yet another article about it. “What’s the matter with her”? you ask. “Can’t such a stellar (and humble) example of young Catholicism manage to rise above all of this ruckus?”

I have my reasons.

Unlike most of the press, my primary interest isn’t to speculate on the President’s innocence or guilt in the Lewinsky matter. My fascination with the whole episode goes much deeper. This scandal is quickly becoming a study on moral decision-making in modern America. As I watch the “players” involved, I find a whole lot to think about -- and to talk about.

One little tidbit I ran across is of particular interest -- an excerpt from the taped conversations between Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp. At this particular point in the discussion, Ms. Tripp has just finished explaining to Ms. Lewinsky why she believes it would be wrong to lie under oath to a grand jury. Then the following exchange takes place:

LEWINSKY: I believe you, but obviously I don't have the same feelings about the situation...
TRIPP: What do you mean?
LEWINSKY: Because if I had the same feelings that it was so wrong to deny something then I would not be doing it. You see what I mean?

An interesting example of moral decision-making on the part of Monica Lewinsky. Why doesn’t she believe it’s wrong to lie to a grand jury? Simple-- because she lied to a grand jury. If she believed it was wrong, she wouldn’t have done it, but since she did, it obviously must be right. Right?

In logic class, we used to call this “circular reasoning.”

I use this example not to slam Monica Lewinsky, but to examine what I find to be a very common line of moral reasoning among many people today. I call it the “If I’d Do It, It Must Be Right” (IIDIIMBR) system of decision-making. In generations past, people would determine right or wrong, and then judge their actions according to that standard. Now, we seem to observe our actions, and determine right or wrong based on how we behave.

I see IIDIIMBR far too often. One of the most blatant examples I recall was in a discussion about abortion with a young college woman (ironically, also named Monica). She said, “Well, I used to think abortion was wrong, but then I got into a situation where I was afraid I was pregnant. I realized that, if I were pregnant, I would have an abortion. And I’m a good person! You can’t judge until you’ve been in the situation yourself.”

The basic syllogism of sound moral reasoning goes like this: Good people don’t do X. I am a good person. Therefore I don’t do X. But the “Monikers” of the world use a different syllogism. Theirs says I am a good person. I do X. Therefore X is good. It doesn’t work logically, but it does enable them to continue seeing themselves as “good people” while they continue to do whatever they please.

IIDIIMBR is, in reality, the philosophy of “relativism”. Relativism denies that an outside truth, an outside standard of right and wrong, actually exists. The relativist believes that all truth is found within himself. He is the standard of right and wrong. Yes, others may find different “truths” within themselves, but that’s okay. The only rule is that we have to respect others, and not impose our “truths” on each other. Obviously this doesn’t work. “Truth” doesn’t come from within us. Truth comes from God. It is outside of us, in the only “reality” that counts, the reality He created. Truth doesn’t conform to us. We conform to truth. We make moral decisions based on that truth. Right respects that truth. Wrong disregards that truth. To disregard truth is to do damage. To do damage is wrong.

We don’t have to look too far to see the damage. It’s everywhere -- in escalating crime, in broken families, in abused and neglected children, in government corruption. Relativism is a serious problem. It is so serious, in fact, that John Paul I is writing an encyclical to address the false understanding of moral decision-making that seems to plague modern society. In the absence of that encyclical I turn to again to my friend, the late Rich Mullins. Rich had a way of expressing moral truths very beautifully and very succinctly. In his song Creed, he sang:

I believe what I believe;
It’s what makes me what I am.
I did not make it; no, it is making me.
It is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man.

Perhaps there are some people in government who need to listen to that song -- several thousand times.