Moral Absolutes are Essential to Good Storytelling

Western civilization’s drift from a predominantly Judeo-Christian worldview to postmodern relativism has had a significant effect on our storytelling. Any appeal to Good and Evil, Right and Wrong — a universe where absolutes exist — is intrinsically tethered to a Judeo Christian worldview. And without that worldview and a context of Moral Absolutes, stories lack logical and/or emotional bite.

I was reminded of that yesterday while reading Andrew Klavan’s review of the latest James Bond entry “Spectre.” Klavan writes,

The Bond of Dr. No, like the Ethan Hunt of the original MI TV series, like the Luke Skywalker of the first Star Wars trilogy, knew what he was fighting for and what he was fighting against. The story — all those stories — took place with the presence of the Soviet Union and Red China in every viewer’s mind. We knew they were slave states who wished to impose their brand of slavery — called communism then, progressivism now — on the entire world. We knew we needed brave men and strong ideas to defeat them.

Where oh where could we find such villains today? Who holds to a slave philosophy now? Who wants to impose that philosophy on the rest of us? Why are they evil? Why should we oppose them?

The answers are 1. In the Middle East; 2. Islamists; 3. Also Islamists; 4. Because individual liberty is an objective good; and 5. Because if good men don’t fight evil, evil wins.

The people who make these movies live in a haze of such intellectual dishonesty that they have forgotten, or chosen to ignore, these answers. They aren’t honest so they can’t write honest plots. Their villains have no motives and their master plans are confusing where they’re not just laughable. Their heroes are merely an assemblage of characteristics from an earlier age: empty images that move and talk a certain way but have no virtue and so no power to thrill. They are, so to speak, merely spectres of their former selves.

Without intellectual honesty, you can’t find moral truth. Without moral truth, there are no good stories. (bold, mine)

The further one drifts towards relativism, the less real Evil there is. To the postmodern relativist, jihadists have legitimate gripes, “individual liberty is [NOT] an objective good,” and Darth Maul needs “understood” rather than impaled on a light saber. Likewise, “without moral truth,” authors are forced to merely contrive survival scenarios and “values clarification” exercises. Our “bad guys” are simply confused and our good guys aren’t much better. To the postmodern filmmaker, there is no altruistic Moral high ground, just a vast wasteland of eye candy.

Of course, some will object that Relativistic fiction can be compelling. “You don’t need Moral Absolutes for a story to be interesting. A belief in Good and Evil can exist apart from Judeo-Christianity.” 

Sure, relativistic fiction can be compelling… but only if you don’t think it through. So your protag survives. Big deal. If the Moral framework of her universe is negotiable, what does her survival matter? Other than to her. The survival of the zombies or thieves or flesh eating bacteria might be just as morally sustainable. And if that Moral framework is relative, then her survival really doesn’t matter. I mean, why is it “better” that she and her child survive? On what grounds? And in the end, if there are no Moral Absolutes, your protag and all her great deeds will simply fade into the dust of history like so many other valiant, yet futile, warriors.

Others will object that a belief in Good and Evil can exist apart from Judeo-Christianity. To which I’d ask, in which worldview? Not the relativistic worldview, for Good and Evil are subjectively defined. They are not “real” except to the individual or society who believes them to be. In a relativistic universe, why should the Third Reich be defeated? Because they’re killing innocent people? According to them they’re eliminating an inferior race. Because they threaten human existence? According to them, they are advancing the species. See? You can’t fight evil unless you actually believe in Evil.

Which implies the existence of Good. An objective, Absolute Moral Good.

Two of the major world religions — Judeo-Christianity and Islam — see morals as rooted in God (even though their conceptions of God greatly differ). In Hinduism, the third great world religion, God is in everything, both good and evil. As a result, there is no absolute morality. Through the law of karma, the soul (Atman) simply migrates back to God (Brahman).

So I ask again, which other worldview appeals to Moral Absolutes? An

• atheistic worldview?
• humanistic worldview?
• pantheistic worldview?
• polytheistic worldview?

In theory, none of them appeal to Moral Absolutes. In practice, all of them do. While someone may claim they believe that truth is relative, they rarely act like it. Which is why Moral relativists are still compelled to fight for human rights, demand justice, aspire to be noble and courageous, and not kick puppies for the fun of it.

Any belief system that appeals to a Moral Law evokes a Judeo-Christian worldview. How? Because a Moral Law implies a Moral Lawgiver.

Dennis Prager, Jewish speaker and radio talk show host, in his article entitled Moral Absolutes put it simply:

In the Judeo-Christian value system, God is the source of moral values and therefore what is moral and immoral transcends personal or societal opinion. Without God, each society or individual makes up its or his/her moral standards. But once individuals or societies become the source of right and wrong, right and wrong, good and evil, are merely adjectives describing one’s preferences. This is known as moral relativism, and it is the dominant attitude toward morality in modern secular society. (emphasis mine)

There are only two options here, folks. We either live in a world where

1. Morals are grounded outside us (in God / the Universe), or
2. Morals are grounded inside us (in individuals / society).

Either Morals are static or elastic, unchanging or always changing, real or illusory.

Which is why Moral Absolutes are essential to good storytelling. Think about it, even books that frame a godless, impersonal universe of moral relativity appeal to Absolutes to make their point.

For example, take Phillip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy. Pullman is an avowed atheist whose series has been described as “a secular humanist narrative.” The author flatly said, “My books are about killing God.” He’s famously quoted as saying, that the Chronicles of Narnia “is one of the most ugly and poisonous things I’ve ever read,” and is also “blatantly racist”, “monumentally disparaging of women”, “immoral”, and “evil” But even in Phillip Pullman’s universe there had to be an Enemy, Something Worth Fighting For, some Good to accomplish. In that case, the Good was defeating the oppressive Church and its fairy tale deity.

James Cameron’s Avatar is another example. While the deity at the center of Cameron’s universe is portrayed as neutral and impersonal, she is quite fickle. In my post (appropriately titled), Avatar’s Fickle Deity, I concluded:

Cameron wants to have his Nature and eat it too.  So all the while Avatar is pushing a New Age, Neutral Deity, that Deity is busy acting very non-New Age and un-Neutral, arming her forces to the teeth. In the end, the Impartial, Impersonal Force of Cameron’s world turns partial and personal, comes to the rescue and turns, tooth and claw, on the bad guys.

Much like Slumdog Millionaire denied its Hindu roots to make the story work, Avatar must abandon its New Age, Nature-worshiping, Gospel of Gaia sympathies, to bring about sufficient resolution to the story. But frankly, not even $500 million worth of graphics can camouflage Avatar’s ideological absurdity.

As Augustine said, Either there is REAL evil to fear or the fact that we fear what is not really evil, is EVIL. Take your pick. In like manner, either there is Real Evil to fight in Pullman’s worldview or the fact that he feels he must fight something is Really Evil. If Pullman’s book is about “killing God,” the question I ask is “Why should God die?” If it’s because He is evil, then you presuppose Good. If it’s because the existence of God is a lie, then you imply objective Truth.

Defeating God, the Church, or Christian belief becomes pointless unless defeating them is The Right Thing to Do. Fighting bad guys is nonsensical unless there really are bad guys who need beaten. Which presupposes Good and Bad, Right and Wrong. Which appeals to a Judeo-Christian worldview.

Why is it morally better for the Federation to defeat the Klingons? Unless you believe in some sort of absolute objective morality, it’s not. Which is why Andrew Klavan is right, “Without moral truth, there are no good stories.”