During the past few years moral relativism has become very fashionable, especially in the Western world. Although the view has permeated all of society, it is more prevalent among younger people, for a poll done in the U.S.A. a few years ago revealed that 83 percent of American teenagers claimed moral truth depends on circumstances; only 6 percent of teens said objective moral values exist. Further, 75 percent of adults (ages 18-35) claimed to embrace moral relativism. As the trend continues, older members of society are embracing the same outlook.
With the rejection of God and Christianity in particular, absolute truth is being abandoned. It seems that Western society wants to avoid the idea that there really is a right and wrong. This is evidenced in our deteriorating judicial systems that have more and more trouble punishing criminals, in our entertainment media which continues to push the tolerance of immorality and indecency, and in our schools which teach evolution and “social tolerance.” Moral relativism is encouraging everyone to accept homosexuality, pornography, fornication and a host of other sins that were once considered wrong but are now being accepted and even promoted in society. More serious, if you venture to speak out against this “anything goes” philosophy, you are labeled as an intolerant bigot, guilty of “hate” crime.
Examples of Relativism
Consider the following quotations, taken from popular books and Internet sites:
“Who are you to impose your moral values on someone else?”
“Western culture is imperialistic and must be stopped.”
“Who are you to say another’s values are wrong?”
“In today’s society, moral values are relative. Society constantly changes from what is acceptable and to what is not. Absolutes would not work because society is changing all the time. People tend to go against what they are told and what should be done. Absolutes simply won’t work. ... Deciding what is right or wrong depends on YOU and your beliefs. It is not something someone can answer simply.”
“Morality is always relative and never absolute. Within the framework of our society, we choose our own, personal code of moral conduct.”
“If one believes that there is a global set of absolute morals which everyone must follow, then the immediate questions arise: what are those morals, and how do we know? Since no religion in history has ever agreed on a set of absolute morals, and even members of the same religion often disagree as well, we think that the concept of absolute morality is useless. Since anyone could declare that their particular moral beliefs are absolute (and many do), and no one can demonstrate the validity of those claims, the whole thing is arbitrary. Anything goes in that system of belief, for any rule can be declared absolute.”
“EVERYTHING in this life is relative, including truth!”
We could multiply quotations, but these will serve to show the kind of thinking that is gradually overtaking society, not only in Western countries, but also in other parts of the world. In this article we would like to show the irrationality of moral relativity.
Truth Is Not Relative
First of all, the term moral relativity is itself illogical, for morals, to be right and thus enforceable, must be true. Further, what is true must be absolute, or it is not truth. One of the quotations above represents a rather common outlook, namely, that “everything is this life is relative, including truth!” If this statement stands, then you may have “your” truth and I may have “my” truth, even if they contradict each other. If truth is reduced to being relative and subject to mere opinion, it ceases to be truth. Two contradictory propositions cannot both be true at the same time.
Second, those who claim to believe in moral relativity actually believe in absolute truth! For example, a “moral relativist” may well say, “All views are equally acceptable,” or, “You ought not to impose your morality on others.” However, these statements, by definition, are absolutes, since the moral relativist claims that they are true for everyone, not simply him/her. On a different question, we frequently hear the statement, “You may do whatever you want, as long as you do not hurt anyone.” But then a true relativist may ask, “Why is it wrong to hurt someone?” And if it is wrong, then this is, in itself, making up an absolute moral standard. They are really trying to use absolute truth to support moral relativity.
A Belief of Convenience
Third, those who are proud to be “moral relativists” are often rather selective in choosing their subjects; their relativistic thinking usually concerns God, religion and issues of right and wrong. Why is this? Simply because bringing God into our lives threatens our basic wish to exercise our own will. Scripture says, “The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom. 8:77Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. (Romans 8:7)). The moral relativist rarely questions everyday things that do not judge him, such as health issues, geography, and traffic rules. It is moral issues that cause the problem. But then, even in moral issues most relativists are selective. Most relativists would condemn such things as oppressing women, genocide or ethnic cleansing, denying certain races civil rights, and terrorism. If one presumes to do this, he cannot claim to believe in moral relativity. It seems that relativity in moral issues is a belief of convenience.
Coupled with this selectivity is the fact that all relativists are inconsistent when their theories affect their own persons. Some time ago a believer was speaking in the dormitory of an American university. After the speech, the student called the speaker to his room for further discussion and made the statement, “Whatever is true for you is true for you and whatever is true for me is true for me. If something works for you because you believe it, that’s great. But no one should force his or her views on other people, since everything is relative.” As the believer was leaving the room he casually unplugged the student’s stereo system and started out the door with it. When the student protested, the believer remarked, “Surely you are not going to force on me the belief that it is wrong to steal!” (As a result of this encounter, the student later accepted Christ.)
God and the Conscience
Finally, we cannot escape the truth. To ignore absolutes is to live in an unreal world; it is to deny what, to an unbiased mind, is obvious. Such entities in the world as AIDS, poverty and famine, to name a few, cannot be dismissed by saying that they may be a problem for you, but not for me. More than this, man’s conscience, even though defiled by sin, innately tells him that certain things are wrong. Finally, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork” (Psa. 19:11<<To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.>> The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handywork. (Psalm 19:1)). Man cannot logically escape the fact that there is a God, and a God to whom he is responsible. The knowledge that there is a God makes moral relativity impossible.
W. J. Prost