Question: “What is moral relativism?”
Answer: Moral relativism is more easily understood in comparison to moral absolutism. Absolutism claims that morality relies on universal principles (natural law, conscience). Christian absolutists believe that God is the ultimate source of our common morality, and that it is, therefore, as unchanging as He is. Moral relativism asserts that morality is not based on any absolute standard. Rather, ethical “truths” depend on variables such as the situation, culture, one’s feelings, etc.
Several things can be said of the arguments for moral relativism which demonstrate their dubious nature. First, while many of the arguments used in the attempt to support relativism might sound good at first, there is a logical contradiction inherent in all of them because they all propose the “right” moral scheme—the one we all ought to follow. But this itself is absolutism. Second, even so-called relativists reject relativism in most cases. They would not say that a murderer or rapist is free from guilt so long as he did not violate his own standards.
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.
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, we can convict someone of attempted murder (intent) even if they fail (act). So situations are part of the moral decision, for they set the context for choosing the specific moral act (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 that is absolutism again! In fact, without universal moral principles there can be no goodness.
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.
gotquestions.com
There are times when doing the right thing as determine by adherence to the Golden Rule or loving-kindness may involve doing what might be considered wrong. Let’s say that by allowing a company president to abuse expense policies in ways that would result in the immediate termination is what it takes for the good of the 1,000 employees. What do we do? Do we make a different set of rules for her? What if she is the type of person who just likes to think they are fudging the system? DO we ignore what she is doing? Or do we terminate her because right is right?
This is a very simplified situation of what I run into periodically as a business consultant. There are times I can see no right answer. In these times, I pray and talk to everyone I am able to talk to and ultimately make a decisions, typically based on what is the best thing for the most people. Twenty years later and I still do no know if some of the decisions I made were right or wrong from an ethical or moral standpoint, but they did work.
There are things that are wrong for some people that are fine for others. An alcoholic should never have even one drink, while others, moderation is fine, but neither should drink and drive. From a Biblical perspective, think of eating meat sacrificed to idols?
Regarding Nazi Germany…many good Christians had to struggle because the Bible says we are to be subject to rulers, etc., but then what the Nazis were doing was just so very wrong.
Nice article
Great comment: Yes of course there are issues that seem to have no clear cut right or wrong answer. Is it good salesmanship to highlight the benefits of your product and point out the weaknesses in your competitors, or is that a form of dishonesty. Where does one draw the line? Unless we live in a monastery on the top of a mountain and have no contact with the world, we are all faced with those “sqwishy” issues that call for us to make value judgments. All mentally healthy humans have a conscience which helps us make moral decisions and as Paul points out even the
Gentiles,(those outside the family of God) who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. Romans 2:14-16 (ESV)
This seems to be universal. The regenerate Christian believer also has the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth to guide them:
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. John 14:26 (ESV)
I think the point of the article is that there are absolutely things that are absolutely wrong always. If the Nazi had won the war, murdered all those who disagreed with the Holocaust, so that all those left advocated for the murder of all Jews, would murdering Jews be wrong even if 100% of the population felt it was right? Some would claim that all things are relative and so nothing can ever be called always wrong. I think this kind of thinking is unworkable and would lead to dysfunction in the business world. How would you ever be able to trust anything? All truth claims would be subject to the whims and changing values of individuals with no standard of right and wrong. If my banker can steal money from my account and this theft might or might not be wrong, how can I ever trust a bank? If when caught this banker is brought before a judge who believes in moral relativism, he might decide that it is good for the banker to steal my money because he can put it to better use than I can and therefore it is an overall benefit to the economy to embezzle my money. A national socialist government might decide my life has no value and I should be put into a concentration camp and then burned in an oven. Oh wait, that has already happened. Nevermind.