what is moral relativism?

www.confidentchristians.org

Wh

at

is

M O R A L R E L A T I V I S M ?

Examining the Claims of Moral Relativism


A Definition of Moral Relativism

Moral relativism is a philosophy that

asserts there is no global, absolute

moral law that applies to all people,

for all time, and in all places. Instead

of an objective moral law, it espouses

a qualified view where morals are

concerned, especially in the areas of

individual moral practice where

personal and situational encounters

supposedly dictate the correct moral

position.


From Nietzsche

“You have your way, I have

my way. As for the right

way, it does not exist.”

- Frederick Nietzsche


Morality from Evolution?

In modern times, the espousal of moral relativism has been closely linked to the

theory of evolution. The argument is, in the same way that humanity has evolved

from lesser to greater biological organisms, the same process is in play in the

area of morals and ethics. Therefore, all that can be ascertained at present (and

forever) is that there is no absolute or fixed certainty in the area of morality.


Evolution’s Logical Conclusion

“If man is a product of

evolution, one species

among others, in a universe

without purpose, then man‟s

option is to live for himself”.

- Paul Kurtz The Humanist Alternative


Moral Relativism In Action

A grand example of this philosophy in action can be seen in the 2007-2008

meltdown that occurred in the American financial and banking industry.

Those taught relative morality in their philosophy and business ethics

college courses proceeded to live out those teachings on Wall Street and in

other corporate avenues, with the outcome being devastating for those who

were on the receiving end of their relative morality.


The Public Response

Oddly enough, many who believed in relative morality at that time

were outraged and absolutely sure that those who engaged in

deceptive business practices ought to be punished for their unethical

moral behavior.


An Important Truth Revealed

Moral relativists have a rather dim view of moral

relativism when it negatively impacts them.


Let the moral relativist be lied to, be the

victim of false advertising, uncover the

fact that their spouse has been

relatively faithful to them, and they

instantly become a moral absolutist. A

person‟s reaction to what they consider

unfair ethical treatment always betrays

their true feelings on the matter of

relative vs. objective moral laws.

An Important Truth Revealed


The Important Question

The problem for the moral relativist (who is most times a secular humanist

that rejects God) is they have no good answer to the two-part question:

Is there anything wrong with anything?

(and why?)


Answering the Question

Two things are necessary to answer the

question:

1. An unchanging standard that can be

turned to

2. An absolute authority that has the right to

impose moral obligation

Absent these two things, morals/ethics simply

becomes emotive. Rape, for example, can

never be deemed wrong; the strongest

statement that can be made about rape is “I

don‟t like it.”


Available Options for Moral Relativists

The only options available to the secular humanist where

a standard and authority are concerned are: (1) the

natural universe; (2) culture; (3) the individual.


Morals from the Universe?

The natural universe isn‟t an option as amoral matter cannot

produce moral beings nor prescribe moral behavior.


Morals from Culture?

Culture cannot be appealed to as there

are many cultures throughout the world,

all with different moral standards and

practices; there is no way to ascertain

which culture is „correct‟. Culture merely

displays what “is” with respect to

morality, and even the famous skeptic

and antagonist of religion David Hume

stated that humanity cannot derive an

“ought” from an “is” where morals are

concerned.


Morals from Each Individual?

Lastly, if each individual is used as a standard/authority for

morals, the problem seen in using cultures as a moral compass

is suddenly compounded exponentially. Who serves as judge?


Science to the Rescue?

Seeing this dilemma, some try

to say that science can be used

to dictate ethics, but even

secular scientists admit that

science is a descriptive

discipline and not a prescriptive

one. In addition, its empirical

methods are impotent to answer

such moral questions such as if

the Nazi‟s were evil.


Scientists Say No

“You are right in speaking of the

moral foundations of science,

but you cannot turn round and

speak of the scientific

foundations of morality.”

- Albert Einstein


Nowhere to Turn

In the end, the moral relativist has no satisfying answer in his/her attempt to

respond to the question of if there is anything wrong with anything, and why.

There is no standard to turn to and no authority to recognize and respect.


Another Alternative

In contrast to the moral relativist

whose worldview is secular

humanism, the Christian worldview

provides a solid standard and

authority that can be confidently

referenced and followed. The

Creator God, Who has revealed

Himself in His Word is both the

standard and authority for morals.

From God‟s nature comes pure good

that serves as the straight line by

which all crooked lines can be

measured.


Moral Grounding in Transcendence

God‟s image has been impressed upon humanity (cf. Gen. 1:26-27)

so that human beings instinctively know God‟s moral law and what is

right and wrong (cf. Rom. 2:14-15). People don‟t have to believe in

God to know His moral law, but in denying Him, they lose the ability to

ground an objective moral law in something than transcends the

physical universe. Without that transcendent God, as Dostoevsky

famously observed, everything is permissible.


No God, No Morals = Existentialism

Oddly enough, Dostoevsky‟s statement was

chosen by the existentialist Jean Paul Sartre

as the beginning of his existentialist

philosophy: “Nowhere is it written that the

God exists, that we must be honest, that we

must not lie; because the fact is we are on a

plain where there are only men. Dostoevsky

said if God didn‟t exist, everything would be

possible. That is the very starting point of

existentialism. Indeed, everything is

permissible if God does not exist”.


Conclusions

The tragic truth for existentialists like Sartre and all moral relativists is this:

when you hold God‟s funeral and bury His moral law along with Him,

something will take His place. That something will be an individual or group

of individuals who take power and, in authoritarian fashion, impose their own

moral framework on everyone else. The world has already seen such things

in the regimes of Stalin and Pol Pot.


Conclusions

The far better course of action is

to thankfully acknowledge God

as the true source of good and

His objective moral law, which

God established only for the well

being of His creation.


For More Information



Wh

at

is

M O R A L R E L A T I V I S M ?

Examining the Claims of Moral Relativism

what is moral relativism?

Documents

moral relativiststhe

moral obligationabsent

moral compassis

moral absolutist

espousal of moral relativism

claims of moral relativism

objective moral law

answersuch moral questions