We are facing a scourge in our society today–moral relativism. First, a definition. Relativists see no objective morality. Instead, moral opinions are like our tastes in ice cream–a personal preference. You like vanilla, I like chocolate. There are no “oughts” out there.
This belief has had a huge negative impact on society today. There is less emphasis on Western values (multiculturalism reigns–all cultures are equally valid and correct in their beliefs). It also suppresses free speech (don’t suggest one idea is better than another), creates mental laziness (no need to compare ideas), and leads to political correctness (don’t offend).
One type is cultural relativism, which says it’s society that determines moral beliefs, but there are problems with it. Contrary to what it believes (that societies can’t agree on moral standards), there are shared beliefs among societies– rape is bad, it is noble to die for others, unjust killing is bad, it’s wrong to punish innocents. If society determines morality, nothing is immoral. Think of slavery in 19th century. Also, if society determines morality, moral reformers are not heroes. That makes people like Corrie ten Boom, M. L. King, Gandhi, and Wilberforce immoral–seems crazy to believe that.
A second type, individual relativism, also has problems with it. For example, relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing (take child abuse–all they can say, “I don’t like it”). In addition, they can’t complain about the problem of evil. Here’s the problem C. S. Lewis encountered in his atheist days:
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying that the world really was unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fantasies.”
One more problem for relativists–they can’t place blame or accept praise–why punish anyone? An additional problem has to do with using words like “unfair” or “unjust.” Those words have no meaning. Finally, they can’t promote an obligation of tolerance, since the term means to allow people to disagree. But disagreement indicates a difference of opinion in which someone may be right or wrong. These two terms don’t mean anything to a relativist.
This obviously only scratches the surface of moral relativism as a topic to be explored. I will touch on it again and again, I’m sure. People might want to read Greg Koukl’s excellent book on it–Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air.
