In a previous post I noted that while people may pay lip service to moral relativism, no one does, and no one can live consistently as a moral relativist. Not only do moral relativists fail to live out their moral philosophy, but I am convinced that on existentially deep level (if not an intellectually deep level), they know moral relativism is false.
If moral relativism is true, and if the moral relativist truly believes it is true, then why do they continue to believe and act as if some things are objectively wrong for everyone? Why is it that they can’t help but to make moral judgments about what is right (tolerance, fairness, open-mindedness, etc.) and what is wrong (intolerance, homophobia, discrimination, forcing one’s morality on others, etc.), and act as if these truths apply to everyone? It’s because there is such a thing as moral truth, and they know it. All of us are made in the image of God and reflect His moral nature. We all possess moral knowledge. In the same way all of us possess rational intuitions to distinguish what is true from what is false, we possess moral intuitions to distinguish between what is good and what is evil. People are free to deny these intuitions, but the fact that they live in the real world in which moral values are an objective feature means they cannot escape moral knowledge and the making of moral judgments to one degree or another.
This becomes clear the moment you begin to reflect on certain moral issues. For example, does anyone think it is acceptable for someone to torture a child for the sheer fun of it? I don’t care what culture someone is part of, all of us know that this is a grave moral evil. We don’t think torturing children is a matter of personal or cultural preference. And yet if moral relativism is true, not only is the moral relativist prohibited from saying this is evil, but he should not even think it is evil. He should be no more affected by someone else’s personal preference to torture and kill children than he is affected by their personal preference in ice cream flavors. He may not share their preferences, but if they are just preferences, there is no reason to be upset with them or condemn them.
The fact that moral relativists cannot live out or even believe their own moral philosophy is, I believe, the greatest apologetic against moral relativism. It can’t be true, as any amount of serious intellectual and moral reflection makes clear.
Thinking to Believe 
October 16, 2012 at 9:27 pm
Might it not be said that the reason a moral relativist thinks that such and such a preference is evil or “morally unacceptable” has less to do with there being an objective moral truth than it does with the typical human desire to be selfish, conceited, and assume that their preferences are the only right, acceptable preferences to have? That anything less than everyone else agreeing with their preferences is the only “moral” evil in the world?
LikeLike
October 17, 2012 at 9:59 am
Aaron,
But that is the point: a moral relativist, if he truly believes his own moral philosophy, cannot think his preferences are better than someone else’s. And yet they do. Why? Because deep down they realize that we are not just talking about preferences here, but moral truths.
It wouldn’t make any sense for person X to think that person Y’s preference in ice-cream was wrong simply because their preferences differed, but when it comes to torturing children for fun, suddenly it’s different. Why? Because one is not a moral issue whereas the other is. But on moral relativism, there are no moral truths, so they should be consistent in how they think about those who have different preferences when it comes to both ice-cream and torturing children.
Jason
LikeLike
October 17, 2012 at 9:47 pm
I get what you’re saying. I guess I’m coming from a slightly different idea. Maybe I can explain.
Let’s say Joe says Star Wars is the best sci-fi world ever created, and Dan says Star Trek is the best Sci-fi world ever created, and they debate and argue their points. Let’s say it gets heated and eventually they fight over it, and Dan beats up Joe. The only reason for the fight was a selfish “my way or the highway”, “might makes right” assertion that ended in violence.
Turn it around a bit, and let’s say Joe is a Republican and Dan a Democrat. They begin arguing political policy and the same results happen. Again, it’s not a moral disagreement, it’s preference only.
Going further, let’s say Joe is pro-death penalty and Dan is anti-death penalty. Again, the same fight ensues with the same results.
A moral relativist might say the issue in the above isn’t about moral right and wrong, but about the typical arrogance that come with humans, i.e. that people long to subjugate and dominate one another, not because of any moral or immoral reason, but because we selfishly think our favorite ice cream is the best ice cream in the world, and anyone who dissents with that view needs to be re-educated, even if it means at the end of a sword.
Should a person care that much about their own preferences? Perhaps. Should a person be that indifferent to the preferences of others? Perhaps.
But most humans aren’t like that. And a moral relativist might argue that the issue is not because there is some moral absolute behind the scenes which is governing the outrage; rather the outrage is simply because of the dissent/difference of opinion and the conceited attempt to annihilate the competing preference.
LikeLike
October 18, 2012 at 10:29 am
Obviously Joe is right!
I get what you are saying, and I largely agree (although I don’t think your 2nd and 3rd examples were good because they do involve moral issues). People can get upset whenever someone disagrees with them, even on non-moral issues. But I doubt that you’ll see as many fights over Star Wars and ice-cream as you will over abortion and homosexuality.
If moral relativism is true, there’s nothing to say you can’t force your view on other people who disagree. Might makes right, and if you disagree, I’ll beat you up!
Jason
LikeLike
October 20, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Again, the confusion has been made between relative morality and subjective morality. You can have an objective relative morality.
It is subjective morality that cannot be enforced, because it would not be true. But an objective relative morality can still be true.
LikeLike
October 24, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Allallt, you are fighting an uphill battle on the terminology issue. Even though I agree with the distinctions you are using, these are the standard terms used to discuss these issues and that’s probably not going to change anytime soon. When people talk about moral relativism, what they mean is that morals are relative to each individual or culture; they are not referring to the situation.
Jason
LikeLike
October 28, 2012 at 10:14 am
I disagree. A relative morality can still be objective, that is my only point. A relative morality can mean what constitutes a moral action can change from time to time, from culture to culture, from person to person on the grounds that it is based on underlying principles. The exactness of a moral action would depend on the values and microstructure of the brain of each particular person. But still objectively moral.
Subjective morality is the morality that cannot be said to be “true”. Relative morality can be said to be true.
LikeLike
October 29, 2012 at 9:46 am
Relative to what? That’s the question. When you speak of “relative morality” you are thinking relative in relationship to the circumstance, and rightly conclude that the applicability of moral rules depends on the situation. But that’s not the way people are defining relative when they speak of moral relativism. They are speaking of morals relative to the individual or culture, not the circumstance. So they are talking about subjectivism in your book. All I’m saying is that the terminology has already been firmly established in the literature, including the reference frame for “relative” (individual, not circumstance). So when you come along and want to make the reference frame the circumstance, and change the standard way people speak of the issue, I’m just saying that you are fighting an uphill battle and are more likely to cause confusion (as you did here) than to clarify. I think it’s better to just use the standard terminology, but clarify that objective morality takes into account that when two or more objective moral rules come into conflict, the situation determines which rule applies.
Jason
LikeLike
January 25, 2013 at 12:59 am
Jason, I would very much like to see you take on this slippery fellow here:
https://theconversation.edu.au/love-thy-neighbour-religious-groups-should-not-be-exempt-from-discrimination-laws-11634
I tried, but obviously am philosophically-challenged, as all sociologists are 🙂
You’re a clear writer, enjoyed reading your argument, nicely done.
LikeLike
January 28, 2013 at 4:01 pm
Thanks Dania. As for the “slippery fellow,” I’ve got too many slippery fellows to dialogue with as it is. But if you care to share a few of his arguments/assertions, I’ll be happy to give you a brief critique of them.
Jason
LikeLike