Is Moral Relativism a Reliable Morality?
William Lane Craig puts the logic of morality in three very easy to understand points:
“If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Objective moral values and duties exist.
Therefore God exists.”[1]
Craig’s logic does not point specifically to the God of Christianity, but it points to any singular higher power, in this case a moral law giver. I will show that moral relativism cannot hold up to itself when tested and I will show that there are moral absolutes in the universe that we live in. The presence of the moral absolutes does not point directly toward the Christian God but instead it points to a god that is transcendent and ultimate. It is up to the investigator to do the rest of the research on what they choose to follow. Denying the basic truths of a transcendent moral law defies our very instinct as humans.
Relativism, as a morality, simply means that everything a person does is right for them but not always right for the person next to them. This morality lays claims that if everyone does what it right for them, the world will be a better place because everything each person does is right. To put it in a way that is less abstract, think about those tests you took when you were in school. The question may have looked something like: “Your state has a proposed piece of legislature that requires drivers over the age of 75 to retake a driver’s test. Give 3 reasons why this is either a good thing or a bad thing. Support your reasons with details.” In school, your teachers, in preparation for the test will likely have said that there are no right or wrong answers to these types of questions as long as you use proper grammar, formatting, and write clearly and concisely. While this is not an extreme case, there is no right or wrong answer, you just need to prove you point, hence the answer is relative. The opposite of moral relativism is that of moral absolutism. This moral stance says that there is a clear right and wrong on many issues regardless of time, place, and even religion. The question then becomes, what is truth? Can we know that what is claimed as true is true? Truth is out there and it simply becomes that of weeding out the wrong answers even though they may seem right.
People in today’s culture have an extremely difficult time knowing what is truthful and what is not. Social media is a main cause of this difficulty because of everyone being so absorbed into their smartphones and computers. This is not to say that truth is not found on social media, but with all the different stories with different conclusions, it makes it hard to figure out what the truth really is. Truth can be defined as “agreeing with fact, based on what is real, and having necessary qualities.” By this definition we can objectively say that truth is not subject to culture or moral stance, but based on fact spanning time, space, and place. For instance, the most basic element in the universe is hydrogen, having only one proton and one electron. It doesn’t matter when you say that or where you say that, hydrogen is the most basic element in the universe, having only one proton and one electron.
A person who has a stance of moral relativism will ask a moral absolutist to name things that are inherently wrong.[2] Something like raping and killing of an innocent infant is wrong. The relativist will likely concede that absolute but then will require even more out of the absolutist. The burden of proof then is to be put on them, requiring them to prove to you how that killing and raping innocent infants is not a moral absolute but a moral relative. Proving this will be hard to do apart from dismissing laws (either religious or governmental) and the human conscience. The human conscience will be the easiest to dismiss and which is what they will tackle first, but then dismissing laws will be harder due to the relativist seeing the government as the highest authority, or moral law giver. Even if they do dismiss the laws put in place by an institution, one can ask the relativist on a personal level what their stance is. If they say yes, then ask them if they think all human kind should follow their moral judgement. If they say yes again, then the question should be brought up, “are you God?” Their statements from there would turn themselves around on the relativist and end up refuting themselves. See the flaw in the relativist point of view?
Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl in their book Relativism pinpointed 7 major flaws in the relativist worldview. These flaws are major points that even the relativist needs to consider when producing their arguments. They are: Relativists can’t accuse other of wrongdoing because if they do then they don’t adhere to relativism but are becoming an ultimate authority of morality, something they don’t believe in; Relativists can’t complain about the problem of evil because in doing so, they allow the premise of a moral absolute of a wrongdoing; Relativists can’t place blame or accept praise, for if they do, they imply an outside measurement standard; Relativists can’t make charges of unfairness or injustice because justice and fairness require blame (which doesn’t exist in a relative world) and words are meaningless; Relativists can’t improve their morality because to them, they are the highest standard of morality, there is no “better” morality; Relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions due to the nature of the discussions being about whose ethics and morality is better; and Relativists can’t promote the obligation of tolerance because that is an objective principle they are promoting and relativists don’t believe in anything being objective.[3] Not considering these flaws will render the relativist’s argument useless in logical discourse.
Morals cannot exist without a transcendent god. Without such a god, there would be no morals at all and no one could right or wrong. Relativism does not fit within our own relative morality, even if the world was a relative world. We would be lifeless creatures wandering around the world we live in, literally, like a chicken with its head cut off. Lifeless but a conditioned response toward the rest of our short lives. We must embrace the moral absolutes within the world created by the moral law giver.
Notes and Sources
[1] ReasonableFaithOrg. "Five Reasons Why You Can Believe God Exists | The John Ankerberg Show." YouTube. April 14, 2016. Accessed July 11, 2016.
. The logic Craig follows is at minute 16.
[2] Geisler, Norman L., and Ronald M. Brooks. When Skeptics Ask. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990. p. 288
[3] Beckwith, Francis, and Gregory Koukl. Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998. p. 61-69