by Andrew Hockenbroch

Created on: December 02, 2008

Moral relativism is wrong for everyone. If you are a moral relativist reading this right now you have two options. First, you can agree because as a moral relativist you believe that each person's beliefs are right for them. The problem is my belief is not just about the person stating it. If you agree then this belief applies to everyone and moral relativism is wrong. On the other hand you could disagree. If you disagree with the statement that moral relativism is wrong then you are saying that those who hold that belief are wrong. In other words, if you disagree with the statement that moral relativism is wrong that means moral relativism does not work. In this way any who fancies him or herself an intellectual should be able to see right through this belief that permeates modern culture and finds its pinnacle in liberal arts colleges and universities.

All cleverness aside, moral relativism is one of the most dangerous ideas conceived by man. It may even rival the Medieval Catholic Church. The biggest problem is this: Where do you draw the line? Some moral relativists will argue that there are some limits, some things that everyone knows are wrong. The stock answer to the moral relativist who uses this argument is there may be some things you think everyone should know are clearly wrong, but for me they are not wrong. Then the moral relativist normally says something about pedophilia or something similar. The fact is there are actually people in the world who see nothing wrong with even something that immoral. How does the moral relativist respond to them?

Other moral relativists will take the position that there truly is no line to be drawn. While this group is generally less common they are the most dangerous of all. This form of morality can be used to not only allow but to justify and endorse any unspeakable act you can think of, and perhaps even some you cannot. Were people right a few centuries ago to burn or drown suspected witches? You can bet they thought they were. Can one justify Abraham Lincoln's assassination? Not only did the assassin think he was doing a good thing, but some people even today believe he did. In fact, when it comes down to it, why have the United States, Canada, some European nations, or China not invaded the Middle East, murdered all of the people there and claimed the large petroleum fields for themselves? Surely a more developed nation could use the petroleum more wisely than they. This, by the way, would be moral relativism from the rich man's point of view.

In short, moral relativism defeats itself easily when confronted with a small amount of logic. For those who are not satisfied with that argument surely moral relativism justifies something somewhere that you would hear and say, "That is absolutely horrible. Why would anyone do that?"

Learn more about this author, Andrew Hockenbroch.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.