Two Definitions of Moralism

Moralism Moralism is defined by Leonard Nelson as “a system of normative moral principles sufficient for the positive regulation of life. In other words, moralism excludes the possibility of morally indifferent actions. According to it, every action must be characterized as either fulfillment or violation of duty.” In other words, moralism asserts that there is no alternative to the moral—one is either adhering to the moral line or crossing it.

Albert Mohler provides an alternative definition to moralism by viewing it through a religious lens: he states that “one of the most seductive false gospels is moralism…he basic structure of moralism comes down to this—the belief that the Gospel can be reduced to improvements in behavior.” To better understand what moralism is, let’s define the term by way of example.

For example, let’s say you have taken a piece of chalk and drawn a straight line down the road to the ice cream store—which just so happens to be where everyone on your ball team wants to be. The only problem is they don’t know how to get there.

You do—and since you aren’t good at explaining things, you’ve taken out your piece of chalk, told the team to wait there and while they are waiting you drew a line down the road all the way to the ice cream store. Then you walk back to your team and say, “Okay, guys, all you have to do to get to the ice cream store is follow that line that I’ve drawn on the road.

If you go off the line, you’ll never get there. Whatever you do, don’t deviate from the line because that is the only way to get to the ice cream store. Do you hear me? It’s the only way!” So the team starts following the line, but as they are doing so some of the members look up and notice other roads along the way, other paths the cut away from the chalk line that you’ve drawn.

They start wondering where those roads go and their curiosity gets the better of them so the meander off to have a look. Others who took your word to heart start shouting at them, “Don’t leave the line—you’ll never get there! You’ll be lost! You’re being immoral!” They have believed you and they are committed to the line you drew with chalk. Those who broke away, they end up reaching the ice cream shop after all.

While their path maybe didn’t lead there directly, they were able to stop and ask people along their way how to get to the ice cream shop. After several sets of directions they got a good feel for the layout of the town and finally made their way to the ice cream shop to join the others. Upon seeing the strays show up, the team members were astounded: “How did you get here? You guys left the path?” “We found another way,” they say.

All get their ice cream and have a good time of it. In this example, the chalk line represents moralism. The line is somewhat arbitrarily drawn and dictated by one person who says that this is the only way that one may go to reach the ice cream shop. Those who believe him feel they are doing the moral thing by following the line. Those who prefer to take the scenic route are condemned as being immoral because they break away from the line.

However, the reality is that they manage to make it to the ice cream shop, too, proving that the chalk line was not the only way to get to the ice cream shop. This is why Ross calls moralism a fallacy and why Nelson states that “moralism excludes the possibility of morally indifferent actions. According to it, every action must be characterized as either fulfillment or violation of duty.” Moralism does no admit of alternative pathways to the end goal, whatever it may be.

Moralism says that there is this path and that is it. Those who follow the path are moral and those who do not are immoral. Moralism characterizes everyone and everything in these terms. You are either following the chalk path that someone has arbitrarily set down in the road for you to follow, or you are not.

Never mind the fact that the chalk path is not actually the only way to the destination because the person who drew the chalk path and the people who still follow it are convinced (or at least act so) that there is no other way and to deviate from the path would be immoral. Mohler takes a somewhat different approach to moralism because he views it from the Christian religious lens—although in essence the views are similar.

What Mohler objects to about moralism is the idea that one only needs to work on one’s morals because it is all about being a better person. It really doesn’t matter what path one follows so long as one becomes a better person. In other words, in his view of moralism, the chalk line is not leading to an ice cream shop (which could for all intents and purposes represent heaven).

Instead, it is leading to a big mirror in which the person who follows the line gets to see himself and bask in the wonderful vision, thinking, “Oh, what a good person I am—look at me in that mirror, aren’t I great?” Mohler says that moralism is the idea that people just have to work on being better people and that is all. They do not have to make an act of faith in Christ or anything like that at all.

Mohler’s argument is that moralism is not a sufficient replacement for religion. Ross would argue that religion falls into the category of moralism, but Mohler would not say that because Mohler believes that the Christian religion is necessary for salvation. Ross would say that Mohler is just marking up lines in the road to his personal ice cream shop shouting at everyone who doesn’t follow it that they are immoral and going to hell.

Mohler would say that people who draw chalk lines in the name of moralism are really just draw lines to big mirrors where they can look at themselves and be self-satisfied about how good they are now that they followed a little line on the road. Mohler would argue that Ross is moralist even though he rejects moralism and is morally indifferent.

His indifference is still a chalk line and the fact that he even bothers to object to moralism at all shows that he is not really being indifferent but actually wants to appear superior.

So he is standing in front of his own big mirror looking at himself and saying, “Yes, see how pretty I look?” So both people who have very different definitions of moralism can say of the other that the other is being a moralist even though neither thinks he is being a moralist and neither believes moralism to be a good thing—though they both think that for completely different reasons.