This presentation examines the issues with relative morality.

1. MORAL
What is
R E LAT I V I S M ?
Examining the Claims of Moral Relativism
www.confidentchristians.org

2. A Definition of Moral Relativism
Moral relativism is a philosophy that
asserts there is no global, absolute
moral law that applies to all people,
for all time, and in all places. Instead
of an objective moral law, it espouses
a qualified view where morals are
concerned, especially in the areas of
individual moral practice where
personal and situational encounters
supposedly dictate the correct moral
position.
www.confidentchristians.org

3. From Nietzsche
“You have your way, I have
my way. As for the right
way, it does not exist.”
- Frederick Nietzsche
www.confidentchristians.org

4. Morality from Evolution?
In modern times, the espousal of moral relativism has been closely linked to the
theory of evolution. The argument is, in the same way that humanity has evolved
from lesser to greater biological organisms, the same process is in play in the
area of morals and ethics. Therefore, all that can be ascertained at present (and
forever) is that there is no absolute or fixed certainty in the area of morality.
www.confidentchristians.org

5. Evolution’s Logical Conclusion
“If man is a product of
evolution, one species
among others, in a universe
without purpose, then man‟s
option is to live for himself”.
- Paul Kurtz
The Humanist Alternative
www.confidentchristians.org

6. Moral Relativism In Action
A grand example of this philosophy in action can be seen in the 2007-2008
meltdown that occurred in the American financial and banking industry.
Those taught relative morality in their philosophy and business ethics
college courses proceeded to live out those teachings on Wall Street and in
other corporate avenues, with the outcome being devastating for those who
were on the receiving end of their relative morality.
www.confidentchristians.org

7. The Public Response
Oddly enough, many who believed in relative morality at that time
were outraged and absolutely sure that those who engaged in
deceptive business practices ought to be punished for their unethical
moral behavior.
www.confidentchristians.org

8. An Important Truth Revealed
Moral relativists have a rather dim view of moral
relativism when it negatively impacts them.
www.confidentchristians.org

9. An Important Truth Revealed
Let the moral relativist be lied to, be the
victim of false advertising, uncover the
fact that their spouse has been
relatively faithful to them, and they
instantly become a moral absolutist. A
person‟s reaction to what they consider
unfair ethical treatment always betrays
their true feelings on the matter of
relative vs. objective moral laws.
www.confidentchristians.org

10. www.confidentchristians.org

11. The Important Question
The problem for the moral relativist (who is most times a secular humanist
that rejects God) is they have no good answer to the two-part question:
Is there anything wrong with anything?
(and why?)
www.confidentchristians.org

12. Answering the Question
Two things are necessary to answer the
question:
1. An unchanging standard that can be
turned to
2. An absolute authority that has the right to
impose moral obligation
Absent these two things, morals/ethics simply
becomes emotive. Rape, for example, can
never be deemed wrong; the strongest
statement that can be made about rape is “I
don‟t like it.”
www.confidentchristians.org

13. Available Options for Moral Relativists
The only options available to the secular humanist where
a standard and authority are concerned are: (1) the
natural universe; (2) culture; (3) the individual.
www.confidentchristians.org

14. Morals from the Universe?
The natural universe isn‟t an option as amoral matter cannot
produce moral beings nor prescribe moral behavior.
www.confidentchristians.org

15. Morals from Culture?
Culture cannot be appealed to as there
are many cultures throughout the world,
all with different moral standards and
practices; there is no way to ascertain
which culture is „correct‟. Culture merely
displays what “is” with respect to
morality, and even the famous skeptic
and antagonist of religion David Hume
stated that humanity cannot derive an
“ought” from an “is” where morals are
concerned.
www.confidentchristians.org

16. Morals from Each Individual?
Lastly, if each individual is used as a standard/authority for
morals, the problem seen in using cultures as a moral compass
is suddenly compounded exponentially. Who serves as judge?
www.confidentchristians.org

17. Science to the Rescue?
Seeing this dilemma, some try
to say that science can be used
to dictate ethics, but even
secular scientists admit that
science is a descriptive
discipline and not a prescriptive
one. In addition, its empirical
methods are impotent to answer
such moral questions such as if
the Nazi‟s were evil.
www.confidentchristians.org

18. Scientists Say No
“You are right in speaking of the
moral foundations of science,
but you cannot turn round and
speak of the scientific
foundations of morality.”
- Albert Einstein
www.confidentchristians.org

19. Nowhere to Turn
In the end, the moral relativist has no satisfying answer in his/her attempt to
respond to the question of if there is anything wrong with anything, and why.
There is no standard to turn to and no authority to recognize and respect.
www.confidentchristians.org

20. Another Alternative
In contrast to the moral relativist
whose worldview is secular
humanism, the Christian worldview
provides a solid standard and
authority that can be confidently
referenced and followed. The
Creator God, Who has revealed
Himself in His Word is both the
standard and authority for morals.
From God‟s nature comes pure good
that serves as the straight line by
which all crooked lines can be
measured.
www.confidentchristians.org

21. Moral Grounding in Transcendence
God‟s image has been impressed upon humanity (cf. Gen. 1:26-27)
so that human beings instinctively know God‟s moral law and what is
right and wrong (cf. Rom. 2:14-15). People don‟t have to believe in
God to know His moral law, but in denying Him, they lose the ability to
ground an objective moral law in something than transcends the
physical universe. Without that transcendent God, as Dostoevsky
famously observed, everything is permissible.
www.confidentchristians.org

22. No God, No Morals = Existentialism
Oddly enough, Dostoevsky‟s statement was
chosen by the existentialist Jean Paul Sartre
as the beginning of his existentialist
philosophy: “Nowhere is it written that the
God exists, that we must be honest, that we
must not lie; because the fact is we are on a
plain where there are only men. Dostoevsky
said if God didn‟t exist, everything would be
possible. That is the very starting point of
existentialism. Indeed, everything is
permissible if God does not exist”.
www.confidentchristians.org

23. Conclusions
The tragic truth for existentialists like Sartre and all moral relativists is this:
when you hold God‟s funeral and bury His moral law along with Him,
something will take His place. That something will be an individual or group
of individuals who take power and, in authoritarian fashion, impose their own
moral framework on everyone else. The world has already seen such things
in the regimes of Stalin and Pol Pot.
www.confidentchristians.org

24. Conclusions
The far better course of action is
to thankfully acknowledge God
as the true source of good and
His objective moral law, which
God established only for the well
being of His creation.
www.confidentchristians.org

25. For More Information
www.confidentchristians.org
www.confidentchristians.org

26. MORAL
What is
R E LAT I V I S M ?
Examining the Claims of Moral Relativism
www.confidentchristians.org