Moral Relativism: Digging The Big Hole

Wednesday, April 11th, 2012 by Gabriel Thy
Moral Equivalence

Moral Equivalence

MORAL RELATIVISM IS NOW the lowest form of flattery. Christian, Jewish and Muslim absolutists believe that God is the ultimate source of our common morality, and that it is, therefore, as unchanging as He is (but you wouldn’t know it by the way these religious folly wagons interpret God’s Law).

[glossary slug=’moral-relativism’] asserts that morality is not based on any absolute standard. Rather, ethical “truths” depend on variables such as the situation, the culture, one’s feelings, et cetera. Muslims have their own strict moral relativity standard, definitive protections applying only to Muslims which do not apply to sinners or those outside the religion, citing the belief these others are not favored and therefore are already condemned. Free speech for Muslims is blasphemy for others.

The arguments for moral relativism are enough to demonstrate their dubious nature. First, while many of the arguments used in the attempt to support relativism might sound jolly good reasoning at first, there is a logical contradiction inherent in all of them because they all propose the “right” moral scheme—namely, the one THEY SAY we all ought to follow. But this argument itself is absolutism. Second, even so-called relativists reject relativism in most cases. Few would suggest that a rapist or arsonist is free from guilt as long as he did not violate his own standards.

The fact is that all people are born with a conscience, and we all instinctively know when we have been wronged or when we have wronged others. We act as though we expect others to recognize this as well. Even as children we knew the difference between “fair” and “unfair.” It takes bad philosophy to convince us that we are wrong and that moral relativism is true.
Relativists may argue that different values among different cultures show that morals are relative to different people. But this argument confuses the actions of individuals (what they do) with absolute standards (whether they should do it). If culture determines right and wrong, how could we have judged the Nazis? After all, they were only following their culture’s morality. Only if murder is universally wrong were the Nazis wrong. The fact that they had “their morality” does not change that. Further, although many people have different practices of morality, they still share a common morality. For instance, abortionists and anti-abortionists agree that murder is wrong, but they disagree on whether abortion is murder. So, even here, absolute universal morality is shown to be true any where along the political locus one chooses to focus it.

Some claim that changing situations make for changing morality—in different situations different acts are called for that might not be right in other situations. But there are three things by which we must judge an act: the situation, the act, and the intention. For example, local jurisdictions may convict someone of attempted murder (intent) even if they fail to act. So situations are part of the moral decision, for they set the context for choosing the specific moral act which belongs to the application of universal principles.

The main argument relativists appeal to is that of tolerance. They claim that telling someone their morality is wrong is intolerant, and relativism tolerates all views. But this is misleading. First of all, evil should never be tolerated. Should we tolerate a rapist’s view that women are objects of gratification to be abused? Second, it is self-defeating because relativists do not tolerate intolerance or absolutism. Third, relativism cannot explain why anyone should be tolerant in the first place. The very fact that we should tolerate people even when we disagree is based on the absolute moral rule that we should always treat people fairly—but we know that to be absolutism again! In fact, without universal moral principles there can be no fairness.


–> [glossary id=’1098′] <--

MORE FROM TODAY’S Theosplatz archives…

July 4 - A Discussion On End Times

he following is an excerpt from the Glenn Beck radio show. No, it’s not a thorough or very deep dialogue, but after decades, even centuries of modern end times prognostications muddying up the water with one failed interpretation after another, this discussion is clear and superficially specific enough an overview for those more strategically or […] Read more »

April 11 - Discerning Trinity United and Its Friends

he Clash of Ideologies and Leftist/Marxist–Islamist Alliance. It is important in considering the following to note that Barack Hussein Obama is a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ and according to their website: The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision. When […] Read more »


Leave a Reply