Moral Relativism

Have you ever heard a statement such as "Just because you might think something is wrong, that does not mean everyone thinks it is wrong" or "But that is just YOUR opinion"? Clearly, there are certain issues where everything IS totally up to personal preference. For example, some people may choose to use ketchup on a hamburger while others may prefer mustard. Some may choose both. Others may not like hamburgers at all. However, there are many issues that are far less trivial.

In a number of important issues, modern society is infected by moral relativism. Moral relativism rejects notions of an absolute right or wrong in a given situation. Everything is left for the individual to judge. Whatever the individual decides is then deemed "acceptable." Those who object are told they are "judging" and that their idea of right and wrong is just an "opinion." If moral relativism was allowed in all serious issues, we would have anarchy and complete chaos.

Abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, pornography, homosexual behavior and other morally corrupt actions are ONLY allowed because society accepts moral relativism. Over time, additional morally corrupt actions will be tolerated including killing (when it is not done as abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem cell research), rape, pedophilia, theft, etc. Afterall, if one can say that it is merely an "opinion" that it is WRONG to kill an innocent human being in the womb, they could eventually justify ALL forms of murder. Yes, there are CURRENTLY laws against killing (again, with exceptions for abortion and embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia in some states), rape, pedophilia, theft, etc. But if moral relativism has prevailed with abortion, what's to stop it from prevailing in other things? In the future, someone may argue that it is merely an "opinion" that, for example, rape is wrong.<!-- When the Ten Commandments are constantly being removed from public view, the concept that theft is objectively wrong may eventually be viewed as "out of date" or "unenlightened." Perhaps future proponents of legalizing theft may even refer to "choice" in their arguments. -->Is that unthinkable? Well, the legalization of abortion was unthinkable in the past, too.

 

Defeating Moral Relativism
On the surface, it would seem difficult to defeat moral relativism if the moral relativist refuses to recognize any objective morality. It is actually quite simple to nullify morally relativistic arguments: pure moral relativism collapses on itself. Moral relativism cannot stand up to its own rules. A moral relativist does not have logic on his or her side.

 

Pure Hypocrisy
It is IMPOSSIBLE for moral relativism to be logically valid on important issues. The phrase "Don't impose your views on me" when used as a justification for morally corrupt actions is hypocritical. This statement says that the view which argues in favor of allowing the morally corrupt action is morally superior (ie - "objectively right"). It basically states that those who are against such morally corrupt actions are "wrong" and should be silent.

For a moment, let's pretend that moral relativism works. Consider the statement "Just because you might think something is wrong, that does not mean everyone thinks it is wrong." This is a true statement. There are many who feel morally corrupt actions are acceptable. The converse of the statement is also true: "Just because you might think something is right, that does not mean everyone thinks it is right." As such, those who want abortion to continue to be legalized are imposing their view on those who do not want it to be legalized. Pro-lifers are expected to be silent merely because some may "disagree" with the pro-life position. Therefore, logic (not to mention common courtesy) would dictate that those who favor legalized abortion (some of whom use the principles of moral relativism to defend their position) would do the same. We KNOW that those favoring legalized abortion will not be silent. Therefore, provided it is done in a peaceful manner that complies with all of God's Laws and local/state/federal laws, pro-lifers must never be silent.

 

The "opinion" dismissal
Sometimes, moral relativists dismiss objective moral views on a particular issue as merely "an opinion." This statement means the moral relativist has already lost the argument. If the moral relativist dismisses what you say as "an opinion," then everything the moral relativist says in favor of his or her view (including the very claim that what you have said is "an opinion") is nothing more than "an opinion" on his or her part. If you choose to inform the moral relativist of this, it should of course be done in a respectful and charitible manner.

 

The "People should do what they want" excuse
Some moral relativists argue that people should be allowed to do whatever they want. Since God's Laws are ignored in modern society, we have man-made laws which declare certain actions as illegal. Therefore, people cannot legally do everything they want. (On a side note, God gives us free will. We have the capacity to choose good or evil. If abortion became illegal tomorrow, pregnant women would still have the capacity and thus the CHOICE to have an abortion, regardless of abortion's legal status under man-made laws. We are also answerable to God when it comes to the ways in which we made use of our free will.)

Some may add the qualifier "as long as it does not hurt anyone else." This is a logical trap that the moral relativist willingly enters.

Pro-lifers know that at a minimum, abortion hurts the innocent human child who is denied his or her right to life, often in a brutally painful manner. Abortion MIGHT hurt the woman in a physical and/or psychological manner immediately and/or months/years later. Abortion may psychologically hurt family members of the women and child. Abortion hurts society as each aborted child's potential contribution is never realized. (Any one of the millions of aborted children may have been destined to grow up and develop a cure for AIDS, for example.)

How would the moral relativist trap him or herself? (Remember to apply the rules of moral relativism to all of the following situations.) If the moral relativist dismisses the notion of a baby being hurt by saying the aborted baby is "not alive," "a clump of cells," etc., then he or she has expressed nothing more than 'an opinion.' If the moral relativist claims his or her opinion (that the child is "not alive," etc.) is "correct," he or she is admitting to belief in the notion of objective morality. Once the moral relativist admits that, he or she may no longer use the justification that abortion must remain legal because "some do not agree" pro-lifers. The moral relativist must also give up all use of moral relativism to justify his or her positions.

Those who favor legalized abortion may indeed feel that what they are doing is for a good cause. They may feel that Despite moral relativism permeating society Of course, in abortion and embryonic stem cell research, the innocent human beings never have the chance to express any opinions or even have a trial before they are given a death sentence.