Is Relativism an Option?

Relativism is the theory that morals or values differ from society to society, from person to person and they are not universally applicable or in all places.[1] In recent times, relativism has become a fixture in the way that a culture views morality. It has replaced absolutism and has permeated just about every sector of our culture, from how law is practiced to how the culture views marriage arrangements and its citizens’ rights. For Christian apologists to engage with the current culture, they must understand the varying views of relativism and how it falls flat for a coherent moral system. We will evaluate the three main views of relativism to see if any form a sound value system.

First, we will look at cultural relativism, also known as descriptive relativism. “This is the descriptive, factual thesis, often expressed by anthropologists, sociologists, historians, that societies do, in fact, have disparate views on basic ethical judgement.”[2] That is to say, it appears that each society has a different set of ethical standards. Since different sets of values exist and have been established, then there cannot possibly be only one set of values that is right. Gregory Koukl tags this relativism as society does relativism, for whatever a certain society does, is their moral code.[3] Cultural relativism is descriptive in nature as it describes what is taking place in the culture. An example of this would be if Culture A allows their elderly to die by starvation but Culture B believes the elderly should be cared for in nursing homes. Since there is a difference between Culture A and Culture B, who each believe they are being moral, one cannot possibly determine which culture is right.

The second type of relativism practiced is conventionalism, or normative ethical relativism. “This substantive moral thesis holds that everyone ought to act in accordance with the agent’s own society’s code. What is right for one society is not necessarily right for another society.”[4] In other words, people ought to act the way one’s society tells them to act. This is prescriptive in nature. People must follow the moral code of their own society, as moral standards are set by one’s culture. Gregory Koukl would call this type of relativism society says relativism, for whatever the society says, is the moral code for that society.[5] An example of this would be if Culture A has in its code, “Adultery is morally permissible” and Culture B has “Adultery is morally forbidden.”[6] Both cultures agree on the terms used but they still differ over if adultery is wrong or right. In this example the culture has an obligation or oughtness to follow what their own society says is right or wrong.

Third and most prevalent in recent times is ethical skepticism or individual ethical relativism. “This is the view that no one’s ethical beliefs are true, or even if they are, no one is ever in a position to know that they are true.”[7] That is to say, what is right for one person might not be right to another person, each one is bound by their own personal moral code. Koukl calls this I say relativism, for if I say it’s true then it’s true.[8] Examples of individual ethical relativism are found all over the place, in saying like “well that may be true for you but not for me.” Or even the latest, “You do you” meaning a person can be whoever or whatever they want despite if its culturally right or wrong.  In rebuttal to certain morals, the individual relativist would blurt out “Who are you to say?” as a rejection of you pushing your morals on their morals.

At the core, all these relativism systems share the main belief that there are no objective moral values. Relativism espouses the morals that are found in the culture, the popularity of the society or inside themselves and that morals don’t live outside of ourselves. So, is this true? Are these sound value systems, can they hold up under reason and logic? No, all three of these relativism value systems fail.

Relativism falls short on several fronts. First, and in most all cases, relativism is self-refuting, but is most evident in individual relativism. For instance, an individual relativist does not have the ability to say that other value systems are wrong. “If you believe morality is a matter of personal definition, then you surrender the possibility of make moral judgments about other’s actions, no matter how offensive they are to your intuitive sense of right or wrong.”[9] For example, if I felt it was my moral obligation to smash all turtles with a mallet, an individual relativist could not say that I am in the wrong. If he did, all one has to say is “Who are you to judge, smashing turtles with a mallet is my moral code!” You can see how ridiculous this is if individual relativism is actually lived out because no one could push their morals on others without first breaking their moral foundation of allowing each individual to live by one’s on moral code.

Second, relativists cannot improve their morality.[10] In the case of normative relativism there can be no moral reformer for these reformers would go against what society has already established as right and wrong. Louis Pojman says, ““It seems to entail that reformers are always (morally) wrong since the go against the tide of cultural standards.”[11] With a normative relativistic value system we could have not a Martin Luther King, or William Wilberforce or even Jesus of Nazareth as all of these people went against the popular opinion of their culture to make moral improvements.

Third, in cultural relativism when the case of factual differences occurs between two cultures, relativism would say that we cannot decide which culture is right and which culture is wrong each culture believes they are right. We are not to judge another’s culture. Here the cultural relativist falls prey to bad logic. Just because there are factual differences between two cultures does not mean we have to deem both right, they could be both wrong too! Unresolved disagreement between something still does not follow that no one is right. Often clarifying the difference for fact vs values brings to light that these cultural differences aren’t really that different in value, just in practice.

Since relativism fails on multiple levels, what is the alternative? The answer is absolutism, or some kind of objective value system. Absolutism teaches that values exit in the external world, independently of and externally to our comprehension of them.[12] That is to say that values and morals exist whether someone personally recognizes them to be true or not. These morals are in fact prescriptive and involve the distinctly ethical “ought” and “should,” and requires that “right” should be followed and “wrong” should be avoided.[13] Objective values can be defended in another way as well. The first is by defeating relativism, which we clearly did. The second is by seeing that objective morals has at home in a Theistic worldview.[14] A Theistic worldview espouses to an all-knowing, all-powerful, benevolent personal God, and we can expect that this God is the foundation for what is right and wrong and that He is the Moral-law Giver. This is the best explanation of objective morality.

Bibliography

Angeles, Peter, The HarperCollins Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Collins Reference, 1992.

Beckwith, Francis J., & Gregory Koukl. Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998.

Geisler, Norman L., & Ronald M. Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2013.

Moreland, J.P., & William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017.

Pojman, Louis P., & James Fieser. Ethical Theory: Classical and Contemporary Readings. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2011.

Samples, Kenneth. A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007.

[1] Peter Angeles, The HarperCollins Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Collins Reference, 1992), 261.

[2] J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), 426.

[3] Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 36.

[4] Moreland and Craig, 427.

[5] Beckwith and Koukl 37.

[6] Moreland and Craig, 427.

[7] Moreland and Craig, 430.

[8] Beckwith and Koukl 38.

[9] Beckwith and Koukl, 61.

[10] Beckwith and Koukl, 67.

[11] Louis Pojman and James Fieser, Ethical Theory: Classical and Contemporary Readings. 6th ed. (Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2011), 47.

[12] Angeles, 209-210. Emphasis added.

[13] Richard Kenneth Samples, A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth -Claims to the worldview Test. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007), 192.

[14] Moreland and Craig, 439.