The problems with holding to some form of moral relativism are nearly endless.  Still, the view that say, “when it comes to making moral decisions it’s really up to the individual (individual relativism) or group (cultural relativism),” seems to practically be the rule of the day.  Modern ‘wisdom’ says that due to the profound influence of our individual or cultural perspectives (our personal take on things), none of us can really claim to know the truth about things (at least those things which are outside of our own minds).  Therefore, we opt for the word “belief” instead of “knowledge.”  And while there are so many places where we can apply critical thinking to the poor reasoning of moral relativism, there’s one particular point that I think makes great headway with those swayed by this moral viewpoint.

Anytime you want to evaluate the validity of a particular viewpoint, one place to start is by tracing its ideas through to their logical conclusions.  “If someone always acted consistently with this idea or rule what would follow?”  This question is looking for problems with living out a belief out consistently.  For instance, in Beckwith and Koukl’s book, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted In Mid-Air, they offer a couple of examples of this as it relates to ethical beliefs.  Suppose you took the ethical rule of something like “Love you neighbor as yourself,” and it produced someone like a Mother Teresa.  We might have good reason to be impressed by this moral system of belief.  Imagine you ran with the ethical system which says, “Non-violent passive resistance” and it produces a Gandhi.  Or what about someone always living out the morality of “perfect obedience to the Father” and it gives you a Jesus of Nazareth?  I think we have good reason to applaud each of these moralities because of the moral hero they produce when the morality is acted out consistently.

Let’s now apply this same test to moral relativism.  The rule or “motto” of moral relativism is essentially that “when it comes to morals (that which is right and wrong)—whether for groups (culture) or individuals—you do your own thing.”  So, who then would be the hero of moral relativism?  What kind of moral champion would this system produces if one acted consistently with the relativist’s “motto?”  Well, what do we call someone who is completely unmoved by other peoples’ ideas of right and wrong and instead most consistently marches to the beat of his own moral drum?  This is the description of a homicide detective’s worst nightmare—a sociopath.  And there just seems something horribly wrong with a moral system which produces a sociopath as its most consistent adherent.

Still, a relativist might respond by pointing out all the horrible things that have been done in the name of Jesus.  What about the Crusades or the Inquisition?  We must not shy away from the atrocities of history, no matter who has perpetrated them.  However, we must also be very careful to ask ourselves whether or not these particular acts (the Crusades and the Inquisition) are the logical out-workings of Jesus’ teachings, or if they run contrary to his teachings.  If they run contrary to Jesus’ teachings than we can no more lay them at Jesus’ feet than we can blame the military if a soldier disobeys oath and orders to intentionally shoots his weapon into a crowd of civilians.  For a Christian to act in an uncharitable or cruel manner toward another person would be to do so in direct conflict with what Jesus taught.  However, for a moral relativists to do the same would be to merely act in harmony with the moral precepts of a “to each their own” sort of morality.  The consistent moral relativists will do whatever is right for him or her.  And that may or may not consist of your good and safety.  Moral relativism has terrifying results—this is just one.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Has relativism made an impact upon the church as well as the culture?
2. Why do you think moral relativism has made such headway in our culture?  Why is it so attractive?
3. What are other significant problems with holding to some form of moral relativism?