Says Who? A Refutation of Moral Relativism

Written by Doug Powell

Is there any moral difference between Mother Theresa and Adolph Hitler? Mahatma Ghandi and Ted Bundy? Jesus and Hannibal Lector? Very few people, if any, would say "no." Ironically, many of those same people would subscribe to the idea that "what’s right for you is right for you, and what’s right for me is right for me," or that society decides what is right and wrong. The philosophy of Moral Relativism is the most widely held position on morals in our culture; it is the spirit of the age. But it is an unlivable philosophy. For if Moral Relativism is true, the answers to the questions above are counterintuitive - that there is no difference.

Cultural Relativism

Moral Relativism has three forms: Cultural Relativism, Conventionalism, and Ethical Subjectivism. Cultural Relativism is simply based on the observation of different cultures. Different cultures seem to have different values. For example, some cultures, like Mexico, declare abortion to be abhorrent and illegal, while in other cultures, like China, the government can require abortion under certain circumstances. Therefore, the Cultural Relativist says, because there is a difference of opinion both must be right. Each culture holds to its own view of morality.

The problem with this view is twofold. Observing how cultures behave is just that: observing and nothing more. Morals are not descriptive; they do not describe how things are. Morals are prescriptive, describing how things should be. Just because things are a certain way doesn’t mean they should be that way. Or, as Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland says, "You can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’."

The second problem with Cultural Relativism is its premise that multiple answers to a certain question means there is no right or wrong answer. Just because the two cultures mentioned above disagree doesn’t mean there is no right or wrong way to behave in the matter. If a friend and I are counting the number of football players on the field and we come up with different numbers, then either we are both wrong or one of us is right. We both cannot be right. What would happen if Cultural Relativists observed a culture where all Cultural Relativists were burned at the stake? To remain consistent they would have to allow that there is nothing wrong with the burnings. After all, there is no objective, universal right, just no universal wrong. This, of course, goes against our moral intuition and our common sense.

An interesting feature of Cultural Relativism is that it seems to indicate that the moral disagreements between cultures are not actually moral disagreements, but are disagreements of fact. Again, let’s take the issue of abortion. The Pro-Life position argues that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being. The Pro-Choice position actually agrees with the Pro-Life position on this essential point. The difference is that the Pro-Choice position doesn’t agree that the fetus, blastocyst, or embryo is a human being. At it’s core, the debate is factual. What makes the debate so important are the moral ramifications that come from misunderstanding the facts. Ultimately, Cultural Relativism is not so much a moral system as it is Anthropology.

Conventionalism

Conventionalism holds that society decides what is right and wrong. This majority rule model of morality is very difficult to hold to and creates many problems. Moral reform, for example, would become meaningless. In a society that says it decides what is right and wrong, Ghandi, Jesus, Buddha, Mother Theresa, and Martin Luther King, Jr. have no grounds on which to say something is wrong because society has already spoken. In fact Ghandi, Jesus, Buddha, Mother Theresa, and Martin Luther King, Jr. would be, by definition, immoral if they disagreed with society. At best, society may change, but it can never be bettered morally. As long as society endorses a position, that position is moral, no matter what it states or who it harms. In this system there can be no argument against slavery, against gay-bashing, against gassing Jews, and no argument for women’s rights.

There are many people who hold this view until one of their positions gets threatened by a change of law. Currently, same-sex couples who wish to marry are arguing disingenuously. They want to change the definition of legal marriage to include same-sex couples. Their presupposition is that the definition of marriage can be altered and imposed on a culture, and that legality equals morality. This betrays them as moral conventionalists because if marriage is something objective and particular, they have no grounds to change it. But if conventionalism is true, then whatever the definition of marriage is, that is the legal position However, it is this same moral conventionalism that kills their argument. For if conventionalism is true, then marriage has already been defined and imposed on this culture and their position was rejected. Thus, by their own philosophy, same-sex couples thus have no moral grounds to change the law. Conventionalism fails to satisfy our moral intuition and common sense.

Ethical Subjectivism

The most popular strain of Moral Relativism is Ethical Subjectivism. This view is based on personal autonomy; what’s right for one person isn’t necessarily what is right for another. This moral code is a moving target, always changing, yet always true to the holder of the belief. While is it true that there are some matters that are real issues of dispute morally, these cases of ambiguity are the exceptions and not the rule. But in the completely privatized view of Ethical Subjectivism, morality becomes opinion and nothing more.

This view renders language on moral subjects completely incoherent, for who could say anything was right or wrong? All one could say is, "I choose not to do that because I believe it is wrong for me," or "I do not prefer that." An Ethical Subjectivist could not respond to any criticism, condemn anything, or even offer praise. After all, if nothing is bad or wrong, then nothing can be good or right. For Ethical Subjectivists to remain consistent to their view they must remain silent at all times. To say anything is right or wrong is to contradict their moral position.

One way to expose this is by using an example case of obvious moral clarity that applies to all people at all times in all places such as, "Torturing babies for fun is wrong." An Ethical Subjectivist would then be in the unenviable position of having to argue against that statement. They may not personally think it is right but they could not say it is wrong and be consistent. But just imagine what kind of people this system produces? In this system an Ethical Subjectivist must walk past a rape in action since they cannot condemn it. An Ethical Subjectivist must allow trespassers into their home, thieves to burgle it, and arsonists to burn it as long as the trespassers, thieves, and arsonists do not believe their acts are wrong. They may prefer to stop them, but they certainly cannot condemn them for being "wrong" or "evil."

One way to gauge a moral system is to look at the kind of heroes the system produces. Take the objective moral stance of the Judeo-Christian view. The heroes are many and mighty: Jesus, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Jr. But what of Ethical Subjectivism? What kind of hero best exemplifies the ideals of believing only whatever they feel like is right whenever they feel like it? The heroes of Ethical Subjectivism go far beyond slackers, egocentrics, and individualists. Ultimately, this attitude produces moral monsters, people who see no need to care about others, people who are unchecked and unaccountable to anything but personal fiat. Sociopaths. Hitler. Charles Manson. Ted Bundy. Ed Gein (the real life model for Psycho’s Norman Bates, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Silence of the Lambs’ Buffalo Bill). Albert Fish (one of the models for Hannibal Lector). These are the heroes of Ethical Relativism. I think novelist and screenwriter Alan Moore understood this. In "From Hell," his fictionalized account of the Jack the Ripper murders, Moore quotes Jack as writing, "One day men will look back and say I gave birth to the twentieth century." And he is right if we hold to Ethical Subjectivism.

Objective Morality

Morals are not opinions. They are prescriptions for behavior and motive that carry the weight of a command. They contain a sense of obligation and oughtness that is universal, authoritative and outweighs considerations of culture, time, and place. They are not personal, private decisions or opinions. Human beings all have a moral intuition, a conscience, that helps us discover these moral laws. The conscience also informs us when we have gone against a moral law.

A simple way to demonstrate to a relativist the objective, universal nature of moral law and prove the moral intuition that we all have is to relativize a belief held by that person. Let us say, for example, a relativist believed deeply in animal rights and was involved in PETA. A moral objectivist could talk about how far he was able to kick a cat and what the distance record was. Or the objectivist could tell the relativist how he just tested out a new shampoo by rubbing it into the eyes of the relativist’s dog. The relativist will betray what he says he believes and object to these actions. And rightly so. But by objecting he has made the point of the objectivist: moral laws are not personal opinions.

Another demonstration would be to show how a relativist claims entitlement to being treated with respect and dignity. An objectivist could ask if there was any reason they should not verbally abuse, demean, and ridicule the relativist. To this the relativist can give no response and remain consistent. Yet the relativist will protest if they receive this kind treatment because their moral intuition cries out that it is wrong to treat people this way.

One of the most interesting things about breaking a moral command is the resulting guilt. Sometimes it is obvious to us who we feel guilt towards. But what of other times when guilt stems from our thoughts or motives? To whom do we feel guilty? The answer is in the question: "whom" - not "what." We feel guilty towards persons not objects, to the owner of a thing and not to the thing itself. It is difficult to imagine feeling guilty to a broken window or a crashed car, but easy to imagine feeling guilty to the owner of the window or the car. It is reasonable to suggest that moral laws come from a moral lawgiver and it is to this lawgiver that the guilt is aimed. And if the moral law is transcendent, universal, and authoritative, so must be the lawgiver. If morals are obliging then it is to the lawgiver we are obliged. If morals are prescriptive it is the lawgiver who prescribes them. And a transcendent, immutable, authoritative, prescribing, moral person to whom we are obliged is what we call God.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Moral Relativism turns out not to be a moral system at all, but merely a set of opinions. Opinions that carry no oughtness, or authority, and could change at any time. It seems clear that though many people give lip service to this philosophy, no one lives it. Relativism is hidden in when it is convenient, but as soon as a person is wronged they instantly becomes an absolutist. Moral objectivism makes sense of our experience, of our perception of society and laws, our intuition and guilt, and ultimately points us to God, the giver of the moral law.

Doug Powell is an accomplished musician and graphic artist.  He is presently working on his Master's in Christian Apologetics from Biola University and has authored his own 13 week apologetics study.

Share your thoughts with other readers:  Post Comments   Rate this Article