This is a very gloomy perspective. If you want them to ever get out of this vicious cycle, first they have to understand what leads to this extreme hopelessness and fatalism, a situation so many people experience.

It usually starts with a simple disappointment. Unfulfilled expectations are then accumulated. Personal failures become too frequent. And dreams don’t become a reality. Afterwards young people lose heart and at times even become depressed. When the above pattern keeps repeating itself it will lead to disillusionment. You might find yourself unable to cope with a situation and are oppressed by your failures. Young people are in serious trouble if they don’t have relationships where they can receive encouragement, answers and instruction. They also need a safe environment where they can share their feelings. If their need for love, security and physical protection are unmet, they could likely grow up depressed and in danger. Therefore, it is particularly important how young people are treated during failures. If a young person never receives confirmation that they did a good job or made a good decision; or when their friend one day decides to replace them with another friend; or they are never hugged by their parents; no one wants to have lunch with them in the cafeteria; or someone offends them with an insensitive joke; or they cannot share their pain over the divorce of their parents; or if they cannot afford designer clothes that the cool guys/girls wear; their parents are never at home to ask about their day at school; or if the bus driver yells at them; or if they played poorly in the orchestra when that special person was around―in such situations they may have lots of questions, feel overwhelmed by pain and loneliness. Sometimes their thoughts become halted and emotions become confused which results in an attitude of giving up. The deeper the person immerses in this feeling, the longer it takes to recover. And the more others are excluded from their life, the more they close themselves up.

This leads to disassociation and isolation. They start ignoring and excluding pain as a way to handle it. There is nowhere to turn for help. There is no one to belong to. They start building walls due to the lack of support and unfulfilled needs. Over time these walls become higher and higher, and they only magnify the already existing pain. This young person now feels hopeless. Their basic need for love, acceptance, belonging, security and importance continue to remain unfulfilled.

We hate emptiness. There must be something that gives hope and meaning to our lives, something that fills us. We cannot exist in a lonely secluded place where we retreat because of our disappointments. The cracks in the wall must be repaired. This is a state when we are looking for meaning and strength to overcome the pain. Truth, morality, honor and honesty are no longer important at this point. This young person will lose direction. This is called disorientation. They will become afraid of this pain that prompts them to do anything just to get rid of it. Aimlessness becomes the new reality.

This loss of direction resulting from their desire to mitigate the pain will snatch them from their immediate surroundings—away from their family and community. They cut their ties with other people either because of depression, suicidal attitudes or through continuous rebellion. Public morals these days are no longer around. Society falls to pieces and an increasing number of people experience a deep solitude and pain. People become rootless. This is the state of disengagement. In such a vulnerable state many young people can easily become prey to crime, drugs, addictions or physical abuse, while others could be easily misled by gangs and cults. Anything or anyone that gives the promise of hope and purpose, even if it is extremely dangerous, will grab their attention and demand their commitment.

 These young people may drift without any conscious thought or idea; they could even cut ties with their past, tradition, culture and even their family. They will try anything that offers the prospect of putting an end to their pain and loneliness.

Such a painful reality will prompt them to live a potentially dangerous lifestyle that can lead to either extremes of destruction. One extreme would be a life full of shame and depression that may even end in suicide. This kind of shame is embodied in the following feelings: “I am hopeless. I cannot change. I do not have answers. Even though I tried really hard, I failed.”

The other extreme would be a life characterized by open rebellion and fake ignorance. “I’m entitled to be happy and have all the power I can attain. I deserve to get rid of boredom and pain at any price, I don’t care!”

YTL fights against this trend by helping you as an educator or parent. We want to help you create an atmosphere in your classroom where you can comfortably discuss topics that are important for your students. We want them to build character, develop a healthy emotional life, and for you to be a good example to the students and therefore help them live in safety and security.

Besides the dreams and hopes surrounding the new millennium, we must face the reality that the world is now turned upside down. Hunger, oppression, wars, poverty, sexually transmitted infections, drugs, smoking, alcoholism, child prostitution, internet pornography, sex slavery and the disintegration of families are all a reality behind which there is the individual tragedy of millions and even billions of people. These are words that shouldn’t even exist in our dictionaries. They should be abolished. These horrible things are caused by human wickedness, lack of intellect, lust for power and money, as well as irresponsible behavior that in addition to the severe personal tragedies and immense economic burden, also threaten mankind with extinction. Such words will be a heavy burden not only for us, but also for generations to come. Therefore, the biggest question regarding the future of mankind is what will happen to the next generation, are they ready, and have we prepared them for the task awaiting them? There is hardly a need to answer; the sad reality is very obvious so we have a reason to be concerned about the future. Most young people from burdened families struggle with serious self-esteem issues and have a relational crisis; they live aimlessly without knowing where they belong.

 In an ill-defined, ever-changing and subjective moral atmosphere where you can rely only on yourself, it is impossible to discover who you are, build healthy relationships and work towards meaningful goals. Most of them are also trapped in the dangerous lifestyle from which we are trying to protect them―drugs, alcohol, sexual promiscuity, Internet addiction, etc. The social changes of our times inevitably generate such problems. However, the immense scale of these problems and how adults respond to them will determine to a large extent how young people are going to cope with these issues.

In the YTL program we didn’t define some new kind of morals, instead we use the Judeo-Christian values that form the basis of Western civilization and caused its emergence. The basic principles used in our curriculum both preceded and exceeded the ‘new traditions’ of our times. We want to emphasize and recall notions and ideas that used to be general principles in our lives: truth, service, courage, self-discipline, kindness, hospitality, social conventions, etc. We didn’t feel like introducing a new kind of morality. Together with others we want to encourage society to live the best of their traditions and beliefs.

We would like to introduce the ethical world view of YTL. To some extent the educational material contains obviously Christian teachings and ideas. We are aware that this new experience will mean encountering new values and undergoing a character development for some people. You might feel challenged. It will be very important to prepare the first lesson plan. You might also feel unnatural about sharing the recommended material because you may be of a different opinion regarding certain topics. You may simply feel unable to use these parts of the curriculum, even though you would be happy to do so. In our experience, even those who do not agree with all the elements of the curriculum still like it a great deal and use the problem-solving approach applied by YTL. The parts that contain biblical principles, Bible passages or use arguments based on Christian values are marked separately. It is clearly indicated when the material contains such a section. You should know that we do not want to force any educator to use the YTL material in its entirety. Neither is it our intention to hurt anyone by including the moral and ethical aspects into the curriculum. Therefore, these parts are separately marked. Nevertheless, in our experience this approach is essential. This is why the sections and the readings on morals and values will remain essential parts of the YTL curriculum.

Your character establishes your self-esteem, behavior and relationships; it feeds off your value system. Your actions are based on your character and your character is dependent on your value system. The values stem from what we believe to be true and false.

For many years now there has been a crisis of values. It is a crisis of all Western civilizations. We have been shaken and lost the former balance of our value system. Human relationships have changed, people relate to each other now through an invisible value system where everything is governed by self-interest. It does not seek the interest of the other person, community, families or society, but only the interest of the individual. The three most important words in our society are: I, mine, and me. If someone believes in having pure intentions, they are considered to be naive. It’s a utopian idea to think that individual interests could be overcome, but nowadays they seem to have stepped out of the boundaries where they used to be contained. The spoken or unspoken values that provide space for individual interests and place limits on them are no longer around.

The common, absolute values are missing. Nowadays it is up to individuals to determine their own values, and these personal values are in a constant struggle with each other. Young people have a heightened sense of this crisis regarding values. The primary place where values are shared and taught is in the family. As the social institution of the family is in a crisis, the role of schools to convey values has become more important. Value-neutral education is a balloon that bursts the very moment a teacher and a student meet, since the teacher conveys values to the student. When an adult meets a child, they automatically impart values with what they say and how they say it.

In a loud, powerful and overwhelming flood of messages we should carefully consider where it leads to follow the popular value-neutral approach that tolerates everything. Every day we are confronted with questions of value-neutrality that require an answer.

Is everything acceptable that works for me? Is it true that what feels good is the right thing to do? Are my desires and emotions the final measure that determine my actions?

Are there no absolute values at all—based on which things could be evaluated as either good or bad?

Is it true that we have neither the right nor the responsibility to consciously convey values for our children in the education system?

Our answers to these questions will determine what we will do and say, what we will take responsibility for, what relationships we will form, how we think of ourselves and to what extent we give in to the pressures that come from our environment.

Definitions

Value. A value can be either personal or cultural. It can be a moral value, a behavioral norm, historical or literary value, as well as a value that is related to human relationships and tasks. A dictionary definition of value would be the following: ‘Values are basic principles, standards or qualities that influence the actions of people.’ It means that values—by definition—define our behavior, habits, speech, attitudes, how we relate to the other person, our tasks and different fields of responsibilities.

Moral relativism. Moral relativism is another popular concept of our times that affects the thinking of the general public. It proclaims the following: ‘There are no absolute values; we determine our own values.’ ‘We have to be neutral when it comes to values.’ ‘Truth becomes truth because we consider it to be true.’ Moral relativism is a basic tenet of postmodern thinking. The general thinking of the public is best described by the fact that the majority of young people do not accept an absolute moral truth. They consider truth to be subjective that they themselves define.

Absolute truth. The notion of absolute truth is the direct opposite of moral relativism. It means that truth is not flexible, it cannot change and it is a fact that cannot be sacrificed and, as such it, exists independently from us.

In postmodern thinking, the climate of our times defines absolute values and it shifts us towards value-neutrality. There is a general command in the educational system to be neutral when it comes to values. But there are problems with value-neutrality.

Problem 1: Value-neutrality results in a vacuum that can lead to an immoral state.

The problem already lies in the tension between the definition of value itself; i.e., the goal we are setting and value-neutrality. If our inner value system (that used to be referred to as morals in the past, but the two are not entirely the same, see later) defines our actions and if it is a force that influences our place and relations within society, then value-neutrality is false and inhumane from the very start, because it allows the individual (especially the young, not yet fully shaped personality) to be drifting in the global flood of values proclaimed to be value-neutral without any assistance or point of reference.

The problem and threat of value-neutrality is not that it is without any values or would result in an amoral state in the life of any person. There is no such thing as an amoral state, just like there is no valueless state either. It is impossible by definition. There is an immoral state when bad values are respected. It means that the danger of value-neutrality does not lie in the possible threat that there are no values followed whatsoever, but that without assistance people might start following bad values. Therefore, value-neutrality can easily result in an immoral state.

Problem 2: Value-neutrality discredits itself by the fact that it uses force.

Another controversy in value-neutrality by definition is that it expects a neutrality of values from the one that conveys the ‘values.’ It means that the individual who is defined in society by their own value system violates the value-neutrality they themselves require by placing neutrality above other values in order to convey it as a value. That is, the value of not being committed to values is placed as more important than other values. This ‘value’ (that is value-neutrality) is forced on someone when that person follows other values and is not in agreement with value-neutrality.

Problem 3: Value-neutrality is an impossible mission and an unattainable expectation.

From a practical viewpoint there is another serious, insurmountable difficulty when it comes to value-neutrality.

If we are all defined by our values in our individual lives and in society, and if our culture is defined by values and a common, yet often not expressed ethos, then how could we step out of our being and make ourselves independent from ourselves and our environment when it comes to our own values?

Value-neutrality is not possible, because no matter how careful or attentive we are, either consciously or unconsciously, we cannot help but convey certain values. And when there is an adult in the company of a young person, they will still convey values even without any exchange of words. Following patterns is a well-known psychological phenomenon, especially among children and young people. It is true also for language learning and behavior that in the first phase following and copying patterns are particularly important. Simply the delivery of patterns and behavioral examples already means that values are transferred. 

Problem 4: The problem with value-neutrality is that absolute truth is a logical necessity.

Since absolute truth is a logical necessity, all relative morality and value-neutrality is contradictory to common sense. They force children into a learning process that is not based on facts and objectivity, but on subjective preferences.

Absolute truth is a logical necessity for the following reasons:

The relativistic principle of value-neutrality says that there are no absolutes and truth is relative. This first claim is a contradiction in itself because it makes the absolute claim that there are no absolutes. It elevates the denial of absolute truth to an absolute truth. The claim that ‘truth is relative’ is an absolute claim, therefore it is a contradiction in itself. If all truth is relative, then stating the truth that ‘truth is relative’ is relative, too.

‘There is no hierarchy of values.’ “There is no opinion that could override the opinion of others”―is said by philosophy teachers who then collect the tests and grade them. ‘Everyone can believe in whatever they want, do whatever they want, because it’s all good and acceptable.’ If it was unfair to request compliance with certain morals or values and force it on others, we would not have an absolute definition for good and bad. Value-neutrality may be an emotionally satisfying state, however, it is logically unacceptable. It may be emotionally satisfying until the person arrives home and sees that their home is robbed. This person will not say ‘How amazing that this robber can really fulfill their desire and realize what they consider to be good and they could apply their values in real life.’ This crime victim will not say ‘Who am I to set my value system above that of the robber’. No, they will be angry, because they experienced loss and intrusion. But if the statement ‘there is no right and wrong’ is true and everyone should do what they feel comfortable to be doing, why do we get angry and upset when robbed?

What kind of situations are young people exposed to nowadays where value-neutrality is expected?

They live in a world that accepts everything and the very opposite of that everything, too—whatever you think is acceptable and correct. ‘Don’t tell me what to think, I’ll figure it out for myself.’ While encouragement to think independently is an important part of teaching and education, our culture overdoes it when it urges young people to define for themselves what is good and right and what is bad and immoral, as part of their freedom.

This process has led to a significantly distorted view on the notion of truth. Most young people say that there is no absolute moral truth. They consider truth to be subjective and personally defined. Very often they would answer very straightforward questions with a subjective answer. For example, when you ask them whether it is wrong to lie, they would often say that ‘it is not acceptable for me’ or ‘it depends.’ They think that truth does not become ‘a truth’ until they start believing in it. This makes the truth subject to their consideration. It means that a lie is not unacceptable by itself, but it will become unacceptable for the individual in a given situation. Thus, the universal requirement for telling the truth ceases to be an absolute value. Even in the best case, truth has become relative.

Truth is no longer an absolute and objective value in the post-modern world and thinking. Postmodernism rejects that truth is universal, comprehensive and applicable to all. In other words, what truth is to me might not be truth for another person.

According to post-modern thinking, truth is created by a given culture or community for themselves and this truth is applicable only for them. The individual is therefore the product of a given culture. It means that truth is not defined by a universal human value, but by the given culture. The individual therefore will live according to the belief and value system produced for them by that given culture. This set of values should not be subject to any absolute judgment, because no single culture or community could vindicate the right to position themselves over other cultures and determine what truth is for them.

This faulty way of thinking is how our young people live and this is what permeates our thinking, too. This denial of the absolute leads to a war between cultures and communities. (By culture we do not mean a community defined by the country borders or nationality; it may be a very tiny group or community where self-defined truth[s] prevail.) The denial of the absolute makes it impossible for us to determine which culture is right. If truth is relative, there is no more basis to tell anyone at any time that something is not right. A great example for this is the ‘truth’ accepted by the Nazis that certain people groups can be abolished on a racial basis. This was acceptable for a given ‘culture.’ If it is true that one culture cannot rule over or judge another, then why do we have the International Court of Justice in The Hague? Why do we talk about crimes committed against humanity? In some communities terrorism is very much accepted. However, terrorism is something we all condemn. So if the concept of truth, good and bad, is relative as claimed by postmodernity, then there are no proper grounds based on which killers could be sentenced to prison. According to their relative ‘culture’ or ‘subculture’ they acted according to their own accepted morals. An example of this is that some terrorists are heroes in their own cultures. Whatever is acceptable to them, is very much unacceptable to us. Who is right then? And who should decide who is right? The answer of postmodernity is that the stronger culture should prevail; it will persist and it will determine what should be considered as right. According to the relativistic post-modern thinking, if Hitler had been stronger and had won the war, all the crime committed by him would be acceptable. We all know that this is absurd. However, the relativistic logic, the denial of the existence of absolute truth should lead us to this conclusion. 

Trisan Harris, Google former design ethicist, Co-Founder for the Center for Humane Technology, points out the importance of absolute truth: ”If we don’t agree on what is true or that there is such a thing as truth, we’re toast. This is the problem beneath other problems because if we can’t agree on what’s true, then we can’t navigate out of any of our problems.” Many in our culture turn to technology as a source of truth (i.e., we search for answers on Google), but technology—as Cathy O’Neil, PhD, Data Scientist, Author of Weapons of Math Destruction says—is inadequate to define truth for us. “People talk about AI as if it will know truth. AI’s not going to solve these problems. AI can’t solve the problem of fake news. Google doesn’t have the option of saying, ’oh, is this conspiracy? Is this truth?’ because they don’t know what truth is. They don’t have a proxy for truth that is better than a click.” 

The distorted value system supported and claimed by value-neutrality also distorts grasps of reality in young people. ‘If something works for me then it is also for good for me’—many people think. But we all know that there is a huge difference between what is currently working in our lives and what is right. A very simple example for this is cheating during a test. It works very well at the moment, but it is not right, because in the long run you faked learning something, but this is knowledge you never had. Stealing could make the life of the thief easier for a short while, but it will not make his actions right. Just because raping a girl causes pleasure to the perpetrator, rape still remains a deplorable and punishable crime. 

If what is right and wrong is not determined by whether we like it or it works for us, then who decides about right and wrong?

Well, this is what morality deals with. Morality is the surface of absolute truth, the truth when we know that something is good or bad. But who decides what is good and what is bad? What is the basis for morals? If we try to determine for ourselves the definition of good and bad, we could end up causing a lot of damage to ourselves and the whole world. People don’t want some external factor, force or ‘God forbid’ God himself to determine what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong. Ultimately, we want to decide this question. The only issue is that there are too many of us and that makes it difficult to reach a common agreement. Many people say that we should let the stronger prevail. However, as soon as we utter these words we know and feel in the bottom of our souls that this is not right and we should stand by the needy and vulnerable. But why is that so? Why do we feel it in our souls that this is not the right approach? (This problem was neatly described in the first pages of Genesis in the Bible. God said to the man not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God prohibited it for man, not because He wanted to deprive Adam of the knowledge of good and evil, but because He cannot allow man to determine for himself what is good and what is bad. By going against the divine order, man wants to make himself independent from his own Creator and decide for himself what will be good and bad for him.)

As we have seen above, our beliefs about right and wrong, good and bad, form the basis of our values which then define our character and behavior. Character is the lasting co-existence of motivation and other characteristics that manifest in the reaction of the individual in different situations. Morality is the concept of good and bad, right and wrong, as well as responsibility. The word ethics comes from the Greek word ethos. Classic philosophers wanted to find what was good, beautiful and true. In morality we are looking for the expected behavior. Faith deals with questions like what is true/false, absolute/relative and transcendent/materialistic. Morality feeds off faith and is based on our answer to the question of whether there is one true God, whether the transcendent exists, whether there is a personal God and whether we were created or came about by accident. It will also provide an answer for what is good and what is bad. Our value system develops from our morals by transposing what is good and what is right and what is wrong to determine how we think in certain important areas in our lives. This will develop into our character and motivation that will manifest in our behavior. 

Morality could not be defined without a definition of man

It is important to have clear definitions when we talk about ethics and morality. But for the definition of morality we will need to dig even deeper. Before we undertake the enormous task of describing human behavioral patterns, it is useful to know what it means to be a human being. The primary reason why non-Christian ideologies fail is because they do not provide a convincing definition for what/who man is. The definition of morality should be preceded by a definition of man, for whom morality and ethics exist and whose life and behavior it defines.

In the last century Hungary experienced oppression by two extremely cruel ideologies. These ideologies gave a very specific definition to man.

In the interpretation of Nazism, mankind is made up of superior and inferior races. The primary goal of Nazi ideology was to reinforce the rule of the superior race over the inferior ones. Its ultimate goal—as the horrors of World War II clearly show—was the eradication of all species they considered to be inferior.

Communists—who were still in charge of the education system when the current adult Hungarian population was attending school—primarily defined man as an economic being. Egalitarianism was the main ideology and in the class conflict richer people or land owners were considered to be the enemy. The ruling class had to be stripped of their rights and privileges, and if it was necessary, they were even murdered.

By now it has become clear that both ideologies fully lost their credibility already back in the 20th century. These ideologies insisted on defining man independently from the Creator. And because they did so, they were doomed to fail.

There are other powerful, rather intellectually convincing and less political ideologies that seek to define man in our modern times. The followers of Darwin claim that the key to understanding man lies with biology. The followers of Freud believe that man can be understood through psychology. Existentialists say that understanding even in the best case is intangible, but the key to the identity of man is subject to human will. We have to make an educated choice regarding what is best for us and live accordingly. Due to a lack of time and place these ideologies cannot be studied here in great depth. They each have their own appeal and most people have their own convictions—at least to some extent—and are still being shaped by the Darwinian world view.

The Christian world view has a totally different take on mankind. According to the Bible, man is a fallen image. It means two things:

Man is made as an image, which means that man was originally planned and created for a purpose, to bear the image of his Creator and to reflect the character of this Creator.

Man is fallen, which means that he consciously went against the original plan of the Creator by making an unlawful and condemnable choice. This is sin.

What can be said of man is that man bears the image of his Creator, but this image is distorted and ruined. God’s plan is to restore the image of the fallen man. This work of restoration was accomplished by Jesus Christ. By redemption we mean the restoration of the original state of man.

When we say that God created man in his own image, it not only means that man is different from animals because of the cognitive skills such as speech, thinking, foresight, but also the social ability of living in relationships. Man cannot only live in a relationship with other human beings, but also bears this image function mostly because they can connect to the Creator, as included in the original plan. Therefore, the Christian definition of man entails the following three characteristics:

Because of his fallen nature, man is capable of doing a lot of evil. There are many historical examples that support this truth.

Being an image, man has an enormous capacity to accomplish many wonderful things. Obviously, even those who do not accept the Christian world view are also capable of doing good things. And our fallen nature is confirmed by the fact that even though many people believe the Christian Gospel they are still capable of committing a lot of evil.

Being made into an image, man is able to live in a relationship with his Creator.

How does this all relate to morality? Man is capable of good and evil; that is all that morality is about. When we talk about ethics we talk about the difference between good (that we should seek) and bad (that we should avoid). The notion that Christianity is all about man being good or bad is a dangerous idea, yet it’s what many people think. But Christianity is primarily not about right and wrong. Obviously, this is a question that Christian people are concerned about, and this is why we are talking about ethics now.

Yet, the essence of Christianity is not whether we are good or bad, but whether we are alive or dead. This is the reason why we must distinguish between those who are nominal Christians and those who are Christians in the biblical sense because of their faith. The Son of God was killed by religious people, seemingly out of religious conviction. A religious evil man is always worse than a political opponent. Pilate―the Roman governor―would have been satisfied with Jesus being beaten and then released. It was the priests who insisted that Jesus should be executed. It is important to note that not everything done in the name of Christianity is in line with biblical Christianity. Another observation is that most of the supposed failures of Christianity, if not all, can be attributed to the alliance between the Church and the State. If someone claims that Christianity lost its credibility by the end of the Middle Ages, it could also be said that the State also lost its credibility by then. When the State and the Church are not separated, the Church may engage in unforgivable wrongdoings. Most historical atrocities that Christianity is accused of were committed by governments. We have to realize that governments which deliberately deny religious realities aren’t any better, either. Solzhenitsyn reminds us of the fact that the Bolsheviks killed more people in the first month when they came to power in Russia than the Spanish Inquisition did in the course of 100 years.

After defining morality, let’s now define the grounds for it. Without an ethical, moral ground there could not be authority based on legislation or office, even if that authority is man himself. The basis for morality and ethics is some sort of authority. In an atheistic structure, the autonomous and self-managing person is the only authority one can resort to. Therefore, man must be the moral authority. If we disregard the existence of God, our trust in the authority of man must stem from our trust in human wisdom. The wisdom of men—in this case—relies on its own power that originates from individual intellect and conscience. Morality could also come from a public consensus that developed in the course of many generations, based on social experience.

Human wisdom is a rather weak foundation and can become unreliable or insensitive. Morality based on public consensus could be totally degraded. For example, we would not welcome the social morals of 399 B.C., even if it was the golden age of Greek philosophy. Let’s consider the cold reality that the arbitration court which sentenced Socrates to death consisted of 501 Greek citizens. We also tend to forget that the economies of ancient Rome and Greece prospered at the expense of their slaves. Neither would we want to submit ourselves to the public morals prevalent in Munich in 1936 when Hitler was worshipped almost as a superhuman.

Most philosophers agree that without the existence of an absolute God who set up the rules there can be no absolute ethics, only preferences. If there is no God—for whom the honor and respect of life is the absolute measure since He created it, and since life was not accidental, it is valuable―then there is no absolute right to life. It becomes only a preference, as if you would want to cling to life more than not. Without the existence of this absolute God, rulers could and actually did feel authorized to kill and oppress the weak. Without an absolute, the strong will survive while the weak will perish. For Christians, the basis for morality is God himself. God who reveals and declares certain things. Since morality seeks what is good, God who exists and reveals himself must also be a good God.

 We believe that morality is built top down, not from the bottom up. Morality has an objective basis. If morality is based on human wisdom, conscience, consensus or culture, it must necessarily be subjective and changing all the time. The atheist who denies the existence of God can provide no explanation, not only for the origin and existence of morality, but neither for anything else, their own existence included. Denying the existence of God is equal to saying that the universe came into existence in an impersonal way. With the atheistic approach, not even the impersonal elements of the universe could be explained. However, if we presume the existence of the material, energy and the random (which are definitely all impersonal components), we should still find an explanation for the appearance of living human beings in the universe. And it is even more impossible to find an explanation for thinking, will and emotions if we exclude the existence of God. If there is no God, no one was present at the outset. Aristotle said that it is much easier to imagine that something existing created the non-existent than it was the non-existent that created the existing one. 

So far we established that our behavior and the behavior of our children are very much defined by their character, value system, morality and, going even further, their faith. We also established that morality exists independently and outside ourselves. It was given to us; we did not create it. We can only make it deformed or distorted. But what is morality for? What’s its purpose? Is there such a thing as morality itself? Or does morality feed off of something?

Just like our biological age, even our planet has a beginning and an end. Our lives and the world are like a story. As with each story, it has an author and the same applies to our own life as well as the life of the world. This author is God himself. That is why morality has a purpose. Morality serves certain goals. It serves the goals of the Author. This purpose and goal cannot be interpreted within an atheistic setting. Because if there is no God, then there is no Creator; without a Creator there is no Design; if there is no Design, then there is no Plan. If there is no Plan, then there is no Purpose; if there is no Purpose, then it has no Meaning either.

If we claim that human existence has a purpose and a goal, we also claim that it has a Creator. The purpose and goal of anything points to the person who created it and presupposes its existence. Purpose requires planning, so it must come from outside. Morality that seeks to define purpose is also a planning function that originates from the outside. God our Creator created us for a specific purpose, and morality helps us understand and move toward this purpose. The first line of Aristotle’s ‘Metaphysics’ states that all men by nature desire to know. In support of this thesis, Aristotle gives the witty explanation that everyone greatly appreciates all their senses and we do not want to lose any of them. This is why man desperately seeks knowledge, because it is the senses that open the gates for the mind to grasp knowledge and understanding. We want to know the function that our different body parts play. At a very young age we discover the purpose of our visible external body parts. Since we see their purpose and what they are good for, it would be illogical to say that our body parts are not good for anything. If there is a purpose, God must also exist. And if God exists, then He created us for a particular purpose. Morality helps us find our purpose for which we were created and to make progress in fulfilling it. Theologically speaking, we could say that the purpose of morality is to align us with God. From a moral perspective, we could say that the purpose of ethics and morality is love.

When you first start out your training to become a teacher your attention is drawn to the fact that your goals change due to external influences (they are affective) and at the same time your goal is to seek knowledge and understanding (they are cognitive). Whether it is a public or private school where we work as an educator, the school will prescribe what direction our affective goals should take when change occurs as a result of some external effects. It is inevitable that we take into consideration these external effects when it comes to reaching our goals. Your students must grow in their academics and you will encourage them as they excel. Note that you do this in a classroom that necessitates your enforcing a moral structure. For example, you consistently enforce not allowing cheating to occur, no matter what subject you are teaching. Our responsibility is great; if we train them only professionally and intellectually, but not morally, we will be putting tools into their hands to use with no moral compass. 

A teacher acts as a mediator of morality. It is the relationships of a young person with adults that shape their behavioral and moral patterns the most. We found that one of the most important learning processes among man is following patterns. This is impossible without a connection and a relationship. If there is no connection, there are no patterns. The patterns are required for the child to have a moral background. Showing a good example is an important element in conveying moral values and integrity. Children must see patterns that show integrity, are not hypocritical and that they can hopefully relate to in a personal way. It is necessary for them to be connected with adults who accept them and not only make declarations, but also show a good example. Could the high level of vulnerability and exposure to risks children take at least partly be attributable to the fact that one or more adults were missing in their lives from whom they could have received acceptance, attention, understanding, love, as well as a good and credible example to follow? A very simple and good example for this is telling a child ‘Do not cheat during a test,’ while this child can see that adults lie. Another legitimate expectation of the parents is ‘Behave respectfully with adults!,’ but they themselves speak disrespectfully of the grandparents. Another one is the adult telling a child ‘Do not smoke’, but as soon as the teacher leaves the building they start puffing a cigarette. We need credible examples and lives that show integrity. We do transfer patterns irrespective of whether we want to or not. The person and personality of the lecturer, teacher and adult will come through anyhow and it is going to convey values.

By connecting to them we are to help young people develop an internal conviction. Rules and orders like ‘Don’t do this,’ ‘Don’t listen to that!,’ ‘Do not speak like that’! are not always conducive. Obviously, rules and prohibitions are very much required. They have always been and will remain part of our lives. It is the rules of a race or competition that enable success and victory. One of the most important tools used by legislation is setting up certain rules, coupled with consequences in cases of non-compliance. There are stages in life when rules are to be used more for the safety of our children. However, a lasting result will require more than rules. You are to give reasons why you forbid certain things; the authoritative claims must be replaced by sensible reasoning. Why is it not good to lie? What are the consequences if you are unreliable? It’s even more important to develop positive beliefs in them. The rule ‘Don’t do that!’ should be replaced by the alternative ‘Do this instead!’

Our value description started with the following questions: ‘Do we really have the right to do anything that feels good to us?’ ‘Is it truly our desires, emotions and ideas that should be our ultimate standard?’ ‘Is truly everything acceptable that works for me?’ If there is no Creator, the answer is a very simple yes. Then I have the right to do anything because I set my own standards.

But if there is a Creator, the answer is no. Then it is the absolute rules set by the Creator that define the framework in which I must exist.

If there is no God, there is no morality. If there is a God, the best definition for morality would be a command to love God and your neighbor. Morality is a guide to life, that involves sacrificial commitment and serving others instead of seeking our own interests. It also means that when the other person has better things, they receive greater recognition or blessing than we do; instead of being envious we now feel satisfied and happy.

You may feel inadequate and ask the question ‘Can I really apply this knowledge?’ Am I capable of teaching this? My own life is a mess, too.’ Maybe you hold to other values more than the ones described in this manual. You might be convinced that moral dilemmas should be settled with other solutions and you would set different rules for ethical behavior.

You could be saying ‘I’m not interested in faith. I do not believe in God.’ The YTL program does not want to engage in an argument about this. You may publicly take a stand before your class by saying the following: ‘I personally don’t believe in God, but let’s have a look at what kind of solutions and options are offered by those who do. These topics are important and we are interested in them anyway.’

You might have a problem with appreciating self-control and you could be thinking ‘Abstinence? Students are simply incapable of refraining from sex. Why should I teach something that I would not ever believe to be possible?’

This kind of approach is very different from how we think at the YTL program. It’s true that waiting develops the useful character of self-control. We believe that for a number of different (emotional, health, physical and social) reasons, teenagers should postpone becoming sexually active. They should wait until marriage when they are ready to deal with everything that comes with sex. Sex includes the promise of a close emotional, spiritual and physical bond with another person. We are convinced that there are plenty of reasons why teenagers should postpone becoming sexually active until an age when they can take responsibility for the consequences. Make sure you study the Why should you wait? reading that lists a number of positive reasons for waiting for sex until marriage. There is the possibility that sex results in starting a family. We think that you must be mature enough to be able to live according to your marital vows and take responsibility for the consequences that come with being sexually active. It is not inhumane or undemocratic to exercise self-control and practice sexual abstinence. It does not result in mental problems. There is no scientific research that proves that the lack of sexual activity causes long-term emotional defects or mental problems. Abstinence has been considered healthy and wise for a long time when applied to other areas of life.

Let’s take anger and hatred, for example. We encourage others to refrain from fights, murder and tell them not to commit suicide.

When it comes to material desires we teach ourselves to contain them, to save the money for later use instead of giving in to impulses to spend it straightaway. When you want a second slice of cake we try not to give in for health and dietary reasons. Yet eating is a far more compulsive and necessary desire than sex is.

I know that you could be saying ‘Yes, but you will still have something to eat! Unless you eat you would definitely die. Likewise, sexuality is something that you need in your life. It is similar to appetite; you must follow your urges and feelings when it comes to sex, too.’ Our appetite for food is completely different from our sexual desire. Appetite communicates that food has its purpose. In a similar manner, sexual desire indicates that sexuality has a purpose, and a rather beautiful purpose. Nevertheless, it still has its time and place, just like eating does. There are times when it is best to not eat or not to shop. There are also times when it is best to not be sexually active. It is not only biblical, but the HIV virus also says the same. If HIV had a voice it would tell us that there should be boundaries and that there are dangers related to sex, wouldn’t it?

Sex is amazing, there is no question about that. In fact, you could also say that sexuality is an artistic creation of God. It is one of the most precious things we have in life. Special things have a special place where they belong. Just like fire is a very useful invention; it is powerful and mysterious, yet it can be very bad and harmful. Fire also needs a right place where it can be contained. Why couldn’t we think of sexuality along the same lines? After all, sexual activity kills millions of people in the world today. Sexually transmitted infections are like fires. Casual and promiscuous sex without mature commitment could result in tragedy.

There might be people who question the validity of the moral grounds of YTL and say that ‘I won’t accept that the Bible and Christianity have anything to do with this topic.’

Terrible things have been committed throughout history in the name of Christianity. We don’t want to overlook or cover up these terrible deeds. But true Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ make us empathetic about these tragedies and true Christianity seeks to bring justice, peace, love and grace in this world through a personal connection with God. The writers of this material, along with millions of other people, have received help and support from the Bible and from the community of Christians.

The world was not closer to Christianity in New Testament times than it is now. We should not romanticize history and think that it used to be easier to live according to Christian principles back then. There used to be abused children, suicides, wars, murders, thefts, divorce, rape, etc., the same way these terrible things happen today. The moral teachings of Christianity were opposed back then just as they are opposed today. Some people simply do not accept certain things that are taught by Christianity. Nevertheless, it is obvious that Christian moral principles played a major role in the foundations of Western civilization. The way court decisions are made today is based on traditions of the Western world. In fact, based on this norm we not only judge other traditions, but even our own sins. As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote, “The crimes of the West have produced their own antidotes. They have provoked great movements to end slavery, to raise the status of women, to abolish torture, to combat racism, to defend freedom of inquiry and expression, to advance personal liberty and human rights.” There is no doubt that our children today should continue to enjoy these rights and the basic principles they are based on. 

You could also say to your students that I’m not a born-again Christian, but there are some principles in Christianity that I greatly appreciate. The Ten Commandments provide an excellent foundation for us to talk about ethics and morality. In Hungary we like to emphasize that we are a Christian nation. Throughout much of history people lived based on principles laid down in the Bible. For example, we can very much identify with the statement “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!” “Do not kill!” “Do not lie!” Community is important. “Live at peace with all men.” “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” How is it possible that these principles are so widely known in your country? Well, the effects of these principles greatly depend on personal application. In earlier periods of history, large masses professed these doctrines and they lived according to them. Just like the health of the roots of a plant determine what happens to the branches and leaves, people who lived before us and the values they lived by also have a huge influence on us. This value system becomes an integral part of what it means to be a good citizens. While these Judeo-Christian values are still present on the surface, they have lost their personal and historical function as well as their original meaning and validity. Let us consider ethics and morality today.

These principles work and they can be applied regardless of our personal convictions. For example, one of the most important universal human needs is to feel loved and accepted. For this need to be fulfilled we should live according to the Golden Rule, that is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Almost everyone agrees that adhering to this principle in your relationships with others will help you. It’s a signal that there is a need for this moral teaching as we relate to one another. This moral teaching directly benefits society and its citizens are characterized by mutual love and respect.

Or let’s take another example. The last commandment of the Ten Commandments says “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant…or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” If it was a horrible, evil and immoral rule we could easily think that complying with it would have terrible consequences. Can you imagine anything terrible resulting from the following of this command? What would a society be like where the very opposite of this commandment and value system was followed and appreciated? Just imagine “Covet the other property of others!” The society where such ideas were followed would be characterized by comparison, envy, jealousy, selfishness, greed, theft, fear, anxiety, the violation of personal property rights, adultery, the breaking up of families and the pain and suffering of children.

It seems that God gave us His basic principles to protect us and to care for us, not to limit our joy or make us miserable.

All students should learn these generally accepted principles of the civilized world during their studies.

Why should you teach the sections of the YTL program that deal with moral issues?

Because these principles do work. They fulfill needs, they deal with real problems and they provide answers to questions that young people are interested in.

They also help to convey fundamental moral values. Your task is to set the ethical and moral grounds for your students. These principles can provide a starting point for your work.

They focus on values that are well-established in the civilized world. The students can learn about the foundations of Western civilization. There are principles that are common to the citizens in many countries and you should stress the general notion that we are supposed to live by these rules.

Because they provide sensible and positive reasons why students should wait on becoming sexually active until they get married. These sections encourage students to consider the benefits of waiting to become sexually active until the right time comes. 

We are absolutely convinced that the YTL program will be a useful tool when young people need help in dealing with their problems.

We greatly appreciate your determination and desire to touch the soul of the next generation and through this, change the world that we live in.