Logical Reasons why Moral Relativism is False

The following is an outline of some reasons why moral relativism and subjective relativist ethics are destructive because there is no objective logical basis of ethics for this approach. Ethical relativism is a slippery slope that has often led to the worst of atrocities in human history.

A sub-theme hints at the manner in which subjective moral relativism will likely ultimately lead to a totalitarian state, something not considered very desirable in most people's opinions. But that theme would require an additional article to fully develop. This article is not in itself an argument for moral absolutism, but it does suggest that there is an objective basis for morality. And subjective morality and relativist morality have a lot in common. Before reading the meat of the article, consider some propositions.

I. Logical Reasons why Moral Relativism is False

P1. Cultural relativists propose moral rightness is a matter of obedience to cultural values.

P2. Nazi henchmen complicit in genocide were obedient to the accepted cultural values of Nazi Germany.

P3. Nazi henchmen were publicly convicted based upon the cultural values of the international community by way of an international trial and codes of the Geneva Convention.
P4. Both Nazi Germany and the international community considered their values to be correct.
P5. The cultural values of 2 cultural groups to which Germany belonged were contradictory.

C. Therefore, cultural values alone are not sufficient for determining moral rightness.

P1. Moral relativists claim that there are no absolute moral standards.
P2. The claim "All moral standards are relative" proposes an absolute moral standard.
P3. To propose there are no absolute moral standards using an absolute moral standard is illogical.
C. Therefore, the relativist's claim "All moral standards are relative" is illogical.

P1. Torturing babies just for fun has been considered immoral throughout the world and throughout history.
P2. The existence of a universal and timeless standard implies there is probably an absolute standard.
C. Therefore, an absolute standard of morality probably exists.

II. Basic Arguments and Premises Supporting Moral Relativism Refuted

A. Values differ from culture to culture, therefore moral relativism is valid.

Cultural relativism at work.

Moral cultural relativism is a subset of plain-old cultural relativism, also known as cultural Marxism. For a look at how this philosophy has been used to influence Western Civilization, research the goals and methods of the Frankfurt school. In terms of moral arguments, Moral cultural relativism is basically an argument for meta-ethical relativism, which offers that moral judgments are true by virtue of their being predominantly accepted in the cultural groups that have created them. Cultures where habitual cannibalism and headhunting have developed over time would be considered morally acceptable in those environments but not in contemporary Western Civilization, which has its own standards. The underlying presumption of this argument is that moral rightness is a matter of obedience to cultural values and this is always true.[1]

A refutation of this argument is based on historical perspective and international court rulings. Looking back historically, most people today would agree that Hitler's slaughter of innocent Jews was morally wrong. And the international war trials found that Nazis who claimed "I was just following orders" offered an insufficient excuse. The judges basically ruled that you cannot blame your local society, environment or your leaders for crimes you were personally involved in. This leads to the question, "If moral cultural relativism is true, how could these German citizens have been held responsible?" The basic summation is that we all have a conscience that is a moral compass. and that this compass is fixed to a "True North" of absolute morality that has international and universal standards. Some may say the Allies committed crimes also and were not judged. Even if this is true, the Geneva Convention was the international law in force and it condemns these actions. Two wrongs don't make a right.

B. Ethical relativism is the natural (and desirable) result of evolution and social conditioning.

This is similar to the previous argument. Peter Kreeft points out that, though society does condition our opinions about values, it does not change the values themselves. At the heart of the argument is a false assumption that whatever values we learn from society must be subjective values.[2] The study of morality is a metaphysical subject, not a materialistic one. And this evolutionary argument is based on a philosophical presupposition of naturalism. If social Darwinism is the modus operandi of morality, then "might makes right" should probably be a foundational moral code today and political movements such as Fascism should be considered natural and normal. According to an interview with Richard Dawkins July 30, 2005, in Austria, social Darwinism would naturally tend to result in a fascist state: "No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian society would be a Fascist state."[3]

Dawkins flip-flops.

Though admitting a close relationship between Darwinism and Fascism, in 2008 it seems Dawkins had a change of opinion. According to The New York Times: "People who have seen the movie (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed) say it also suggests that there is a link between the theory of evolution and ideas like Nazism, something Dr. Dawkins called 'a major outrage.'"[4] Why does Dawkins declare it is "a major outrage" to correlate Darwinism and Fascist Nazi Germany when he himself stated a Darwinian society would be a Fascist state? According to common definitions, Nazism is considered a form of Fascism that emphasizes racism.[5] Therefore, because Nazism is a subset of Fascism, his outrage is illogical.

The overlapping between Nazism and Fascism is more common than people may realize. Like Nazi Germany, Italy during WWII was also a fascist state that had aspects of racism. Secret diaries by Mussolini's long-term mistress were quoted in a book entitled "Secret Mussolini" outlining how Mussolini was a fierce anti-Semite who hated the Jews and vowed to "destroy them all."[6] According to historians, "Life in Mussolini's Italy was little different from other dictatorships which existed between 1918 and 1939." Were Italy's Black Shirts much different from Germany's Brown Shirts? In Italy, "One favored way of making people conform was to tie a "troublemaker" to a tree, force a pint or two of castor oil down the victim's throat and force him to eat a live toad/frog, etc."[7] It seems the main difference between Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy was that Italy didn't have the resources to commit genocide, as Hitler did.

It seems that Dawkins didn't like the implications of his beliefs and therefore felt the need to deny the Darwinian-Nazi Fascist connection. Not only does Dawkins dislike the correlation, apparently he is willing to flip-flop and back-peddle in order to attempt to persuade us that no such association exists. Friedrich Nietzsche was one who outwardly proposed that Darwinian ethics are better than theist ones and made no excuses. This was, of course, before Hitler's rise and fall.

C. Morality is determined only by situations.

M.C. Escher's "Relativity"

Relativists argue that lying to the Nazis and saying there are no Jews hiding in your walls would be considered moral under those kinds of circumstances, so therefore moral relativism is true. This example, however, does not negate the existence of moral absolutes. Apolonio Latar explained in "Relativism Refuted" how morality is not determined by situations but is conditioned by them.[8] There is some truth to situational ethics because each aspect of each situation plays a role and influences the situation partially, but not wholly. Latar elaborates, "There are three things that make a moral act good or bad: situation, motive, and the act itself. All this means is that one should apply objective principles to situations." An example would be killing in self-defense versus cold-blooded murder. In both cases, killing is involved, but in the first case the person would be innocent and in the latter case, guilty, according to what seems to be a universal consensus on this issue. In the case of Jew-hunting Nazis, lying to them would not be considered immoral in this situation because the Nazi's were in the process of breaking a fundamental natural law and thus did not have the right to request the truth from anyone who would then become complicit in their immorality. In a similar manner, a Christian soldier would be morally justified in refusing orders by a government authority to shoot an innocent person who is far from a battlefield. The artist M.C. Escher produced an image entitled "Relativity" which sums up the conundrum of creating a system of morality based merely on situational variables with no objective anchoring points.

D. Moral relativism allows for more happiness.

While happiness is a subjective phenomenon, there have been numerous statistical reports that help to discern that psychological happiness decreases for people who live with a philosophy of moral relativism. For example, sociologists Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker, authors of the book, Premarital Sex in America, have noted a correlation between sexual promiscuity and depression. Quoting a New York Times article, "Their research, which looks at sexual behavior among contemporary young adults, finds a significant correlation between sexual restraint and emotional well-being, between monogamy and happiness, and between promiscuity and depression."[9]

Values clarification needed.

Correlation does not necessarily prove causality, but as you examine other related subjects similar negative effects are associated with moral relativism. For example, when the highest value in a woman's life is how thin she is, then eating disorders such as anorexia may result. Certain values are promoted for commercial gain. Thin women sell products and the subtle message is: you've got to be thin. If a person isn't grounded with healthy and true moral values, then he or she may follow along with any of the value systems being promoted, no matter how unhealthy.

Also, consider the negative statistics on pornography. Relying on extensive research from a variety of sources, the testimony of Jill Manning was presented to the US Senate outlining the following results of pornography:

Increased marital distress, and risk of separation and divorce,
Decreased marital intimacy and sexual satisfaction,
Infidelity
Increased appetite for more graphic types of pornography and sexual activity associated with abusive, illegal or unsafe practices,
Devaluation of monogamy, marriage, and child-rearing,
An increasing number of people struggling with compulsive and addictive sexual behavior.[10]

E. Moral relativism offers more freedom.

The premise that moral relativism offers more freedom is ill-conceived for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is an implied assumption that pushing the moral envelope will give a person more freedom-related happiness. This aspect of happiness was addressed in the previous argument but has more specific meaning with regard to the concept of personal freedom. The logic of a true moral law is alleged to be aligned with and predicated on the scientific law of cause and effect. As documented in the prior example, specific immoral actions produce specific negative results. Actions are not bad because they are forbidden, they are forbidden because they are bad and have devastating consequences. When individuals believe they are not subject to the basic law of cause and effect, they end up living an illusory and destructive life, not a world of true freedom. During the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970's, many young people embraced this illusory understanding of freedom and ended up psychologically and emotionally devastated, addicted to drugs and homeless.

Adams warned about it.

Moving from personal experience to societal trends, many scholars have pointed out how the negative effects of moral relativism multiply as entire societies become more and more committed to the ideology. The more people there are seeking illusory freedom in moral relativism, the more likely a brutal totalitarian government system will be the result. Just prior to the time when Rome became an officially a Christian state, the previous emperors were mostly brutal dictators. A well-respected secular historian, Edward Gibbon, outlined that most of the first Roman emperors were homosexuals: "of the first fifteen emperors Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct".[11] Though he was opposed to Christianity, Gibbon described homosexuality as a morally aberrant behavior that helped bring the Roman Empire to ruin. Immorality was so widespread at the time that Gibbon described marital faithfulness in the Roman Empire as practically nonexistent, and he noted how "The dignity of marriage was restored by the Christians."[12]

Lewis warned about it.

The progression from moral relativism to totalitarianism can be outlined as a simple progression. A lack of convicting moral boundaries coupled with an ideal of selfishness encourage an environment of widespread corruption. The corruption leads to disorder and a spirit of anarchy. The vacuum of order is filled by the forceful rule of a totalitarian leader who promises to bring a new order. If there is no internal self-control then external control will be required. People will either end up in prison or as slaves in a politically repressive environment. The US Founding Father John Adams stated, "We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."[13] C.S. Lewis warned of the same scenario: "Out of this apparently innocent idea [that values are subjective] comes the disease that will certainly end our species (and, in my view, damn our souls) if it is not crushed; the fatal superstition that men can create values, that a community can choose its ideology as men choose their clothes."[14] George Orwell warned in his novel 1984 how moral relativism can be used against society in order to gradually enslave people, according to this quote: "The Party is not interested in the overt act: the thought is all we care about. We do not merely destroy; we change them. Do you understand what I mean by that?"[15]

Orwell warned about

 And this other quote shows how civil rights are taken away through relativist conditioning, "Indeed, as long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison they never even become aware that they are oppressed."[16] Michael Novak, a Templeton Prize winner, echoed Orwell's concerns in his award address: "'Believe what seems right to you...Follow your feelings.' Those who speak in this way prepare the jails of the twenty-first century. They do the work of tyrants."[17]

III. Objectively Evaluate any Moral View

Greg Koukl has pointed out, "Given a particular standard of morality, the person who is most moral is the one who practices the specific system's key moral rule consistently."[18] The prime example of any moral philosophy is the person who best represents the ultimate end result by adhering to its principles. Many people hold that there is a valid absolute moral ideal in the person of Jesus Christ. He proposed that an absolute standard of morality does exist and that it is a higher standard than even the most religious people of His day believed. For this reason, God's grace was emphasized by Christ as a means of accepting God's holiness and salvation by faith. Despite God's grace, Jesus stated he came to fulfill the moral law in its entirety.[19] Jesus did not deny the reality of the human conscience but, on the contrary, He affirmed that the conscience, also referred to as "the inner voice" in today's society, would become all the more important. As He stated, "My sheep know my voice, and I know them, and they follow me."[20] Jesus taught that love and self-sacrifice were the highest moral ideals. Jesus exemplified unity with the Father even as he admonished His followers to enjoy unity with Him. This unity is centered in the experience of God's truth and love as the ultimate and supreme goal.

The relativist state.

Now, consider an extreme example of moral relativism, a person who expunges the conscience as a barrier to self-gratification and who holds little regard for the feelings and rights of others. This person would be an inverted saint, a stark contrast to the model of Christ. Let's suppose a young man is walking down the street and finds some free porno in the garbage. This supposedly doesn't harm anyone so the results cannot be too bad, right? Suppose the young man finds more graphic and violent porno images. Well, still, these are just pictures we're talking about, not real people. So a relativist can't really say he is doing something morally wrong. But suppose he becomes addicted to the pornography to the point where he feels the need to act out on what he is seeing, what then? We can better understand the mechanisms of this kind of inner conflict by listening in on an interview:

"JCD: How long did you stay at that point before you actually assaulted someone?

Ted: A couple of years. I was dealing with very strong inhibitions against criminal and violent behavior. That had been conditioned and bred into me from my neighborhood, environment, church, and schools.

Porno Product

I knew it was wrong to think about it, and certainly, to do it was wrong. I was on the edge, and the last vestiges of restraint were being tested constantly, and assailed through the kind of fantasy life that was fueled, largely, by pornography.

JCD: Do you remember what pushed you over that edge? Do you remember the decision to "go for it"? Do you remember where you decided to throw caution to the wind?

Ted: It's a very difficult thing to describe - the sensation of reaching that point where I knew I couldn't control it anymore. The barriers I had learned as a child were not enough to hold me back from seeking out and harming."[21]

Notice that there were some ethics taught in church and other places that helped to restrain Ted Bundy a bit. But in a perfectly-relativist world, there would be no church. On the contrary, relativists are generally intolerant towards church and Christians because objective morals are supported. Bundy ended up brutally raping and killing at least 28 girls. When relativists argue correlation does not prove causality, it may be helpful to point out that the sum-total of activities justified by relativism produce more negative than positive results, including, but not limited to, promiscuity, pornography, and drug use.

As bad as Bundy was, he actually knew deep inside what he was doing was morally wrong and had tried to resist his addictions. Bundy represents any weak-willed person in a relativist society who has a difficult time coping with the types of actions and addictions the society promotes. Bundy's tragic story is largely a result of available pornography. To some degree, you could say he was a victim of decreasing standards in a relativist society. What if he never found the free porno? His life may have been a lot different. Bundy warned that there will be more of his type in society as relativism continues to ramp up high octane, adrenaline pumping temptations. That was the main reason he wanted to give an interview to James Dobson in 1989 just before his walk to "the chair."[22]

Inverted Morality

What of those who are not necessarily weak-willed, but who fully give themselves over to inverted morality, calling evil good? What of those who aim for a transvaluation of theist ethics, such as Nietzsche? In Nietzsche's, The Anti-Christ, he advocates a morality opposite the merciful and kind nature of Christ. This quote gives an indication of how Hitler was able to justify his actions based on Nietzsche's philosophy, "The weak and ill-constituted shall perish: first principle of our philanthropy. And one shall help them to do so."[23] Nietzsche's "superman" ideal was a brutal, blond Arian with morals in the basement. If Nietzsche was basing his morality mainly on Darwinism, there would have been no need to title a book, The Anti-Christ. The desire to oppose theist moral principles brings morality to its lowest levels. And the ultimate example of depraved moral relativism may be those who practice satanic ritual abuse.

Satanic ritual abuse as an ultimate relativist code: the inversion of theist values.

Satanic ritual abuse (SRA) has been called a myth by some people but documented cases prove that it is, unfortunately, a very real phenomenon. An autobiography published in 2008 by Anne A Johnson Davis, entitled Hell Minus One, documents an account of a young girl in Utah who experienced SRA by her mother and stepfather from the age of 3 to the time she ran away from home at age 17.[24] By the time she stepped forward to incriminate her parents, they were ready to sign affidavits admitting they performed the horrific acts described. A sibling also corroborated the account, as well as law enforcement officers who were involved throughout the verification process. Essentially, SRA practice involves a mock sacrifice in order to please a satanic spiritual entity. This is extreme moral relativism, so extreme it is basically a kind of inverted morality.

Anne Davis
SRA Survivor

SRA promotes the destruction of what is good and innocent for the supposed pleasure of an evil entity. If moral relativism is true absolutely, then how can SRA perpetrators be judged for what they believe is good, this inverted morality? The reason, apparently, is because society says it's wrong. But, what if the norm in society changes to the point where good is called evil and visa versa? Then, SRA could technically be considered justified according to the "cultural relativism" argument for moral relativism. That doesn't seem very just or logical, does it? But that is precisely what moral relativism suggests when taken to its logical conclusion. In Isaiah 5.20, the prophet described people who practice inverted morality: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."[25]. In opposing the traditional standard of morality based on theism, Satanists are actually affirming that good and evil do in fact exist, and, thus, they are affirming God's existence. When Anne's mother and stepfather signed affidavits admitting their actions were wrong, they were affirming that their satanic relativist morality was neither rational nor morally acceptable.

Conclusion

Without an objective moral anchor, any system of morality and ethics proposed by secular humanists will ultimately be reducible to and be summarized by, an illogical argument. Any attempt to produce a logical naturalist argument from a material "is" to a universal "ought" is doomed to failure. This problem is defined as the "is-ought problem" or the "naturalist fallacy." G.E. Moore identified a central problem, that "good" has no intrinsic value for secularists, and is simply ineffable. Basically, it cannot be defined because it is not a natural property. However, if "good" is defined as a transcendent property, then there is a logically cohesive explanation. If God exists, then there is a basis for objective morality, that is, in God's eternal, unchanging righteous and loving nature.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Peter Winch, Thomas Kuhn, Richard Rorty, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida are sometimes defined as "more sophisticated" defenders of relativism[26], subtly implying the use of reason and logic. However, the use of logic, even Boolean logic, requires the acceptance of certain objective fixed principles, unattainable features in a purely relativistic paradigm. Theists, however, can and do use logic in moral arguments and it is grounded in a logically coheisve moral worldview. William Lane Craig has summarized a logical argument against moral relativism that secular atheists have had difficulty overcoming in debate.[27]  A key point of the argument relates to moral consciousness: "...I clearly apprehend objective moral values and have no good reason to deny what I clearly perceive.”[28] Finally, Peter Kreeft has offered a challenging quote on the effects of relativism: "No culture in history has ever embraced moral relativism and survived. Our own culture, therefore, will either (1) be the first, and disprove history's clearest lesson, or (2) persist in its relativism and die, or (3) repent of its relativism and live. There is no other option."[29]

References

[1] Kreeft, Peter, Relativism Transcript, (http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm#2)
[2] Ibid. 
[3] Die Presse, Darwinismus: Rebellen gegen die Gene,(http://diepresse.com/home/techscience/wissenschaft/155678/Darwinismus_Rebellen-gegen-die-Gene)
[4] NY Times, No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html?ref=science)]
[5] Neocleous, Mark. Fascism. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA: University of Minnesota Press, 1997 p. 23.
[6] SFGATE, Mistress' diaries detail Mussolini's racism, (http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-11-29/news/17180223_1_fascist-dictator-mussolini-s-fascist-fascism)
[7] History Learning Site, Life in Fascist Italy, (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/life_in_fascist_italy.htm)
[8] Latar, Apolonio Moral Relativism Refuted ( http://www.ukapologetics.net/relativismrefuted.htm )
[9] Why Monogamy MattersBy ROSS DOUTHAT (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/opinion/07douthat.html?_r=1&hp)
[10] The Heritage Foundation, Pornography's Impact on Marriage & The Family (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/Pornographys-Impact-on-Marriage-amp-The-Family), TESTIMONY OF JILL C. MANNING, M.S., HEARING ON PORNOGRAPHY’S IMPACT ON MARRIAGE & THE FAMILY SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE,
November 10, 2005 http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/ManningTST.pdf
[11] Gibbon, Edward, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, book 1, in connection with Hadrian's love for Antinous, noted in James Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (University of Chicago) 1980:61, (analyzed and quoted Boswell 1980:63ff.) Sourced from Conservapedia, (http://www.conservapedia.com/History_of_homosexuality)
[12] Ibid, p.478
[13] Adams, John, Address to the military, Oct. 11, 1798.
[14] Lewis, C. S.  "The Poison of Subjectivism," in Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 73. 
[15] Orwell's Warning: Relativism, G. Stolyarov II, (http://rationalargumentator.com/Orwells_Warning3.html) (in novel 1984 p. 209)
[16] Ibid, (p. 171) 
[17] Awakening from Nihilism: Michael Novak, address presented by Mr. Novak at Westminster Abbey on May 5, 1994.
[18] What Is Moral Relativism? Greg Koukl (http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=229)
[19] Matthew 5.17 
[20] John 10:27, NIV
[21] Pure Intimacy, Fatal Addiction: Ted Bundy's Final InterviewTed Bundy granted an interview to James Dobson just before he was executed on January 24, 1989.
(http://www.pureintimacy.org/piArticles/A000000433.cfm)
[22] Ibid.
[23] Nietzsche, Friedrich, The Antichrist, (Franz Overbeck and Heinrich Kˆselitz, 1895) section 2
[24] Davis, Anne A Johnson, Hell Minus One (Transcript Bulletin Publishing, 2008)
[25] Isaiah 5.20 (NIV)
[26] Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Relativism - http://www.iep.utm.edu/relativi/
[27] Templestream, A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/moral-argument-as-proof-of-gods.html
[28] Craig, William, Our Grasp of Objective Moral Values - http://www.reasonablefaith.org/our-grasp-of-objective-moral-values#ixzz3qGdDJovb
[29]  Kreeft, Peter - The Philosophy of Jesus, pp. 118

(revised 7/14/17)

Tags: Dawkins' cultural relativism, Dawkin's moral relativism, proof relativism is false, syllogisms disproving moral relativism, cultural Marxism, why moral relativism fails, relativism negative effects, examples of moral relativism, arguments against moral relativism, why relativism is destructive, Apolonio Latar relativism quotes, William Lane Craig argument against moral relativism, the true basis of objective morality, negative aspects of moral relativism, warnings against relativism in history, Peter Kreeft quote on relativism, what's wrong with moral relativism? Why relativism is wrong, disproving ethical relativism, moral relativism disproved


Related:
   
Why Science Still Cannot Answer Moral Questions
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-science-cannot-answer-moral.html 

Atheist Achilles Heels: Objective Morality and Sacred Life

http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/atheist-achilles-heels-objective.html

The Health and Logic of a Thankful Lifestyle  
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/11/health-and-logic-of-being-thankful.html