Fatal Flaws of Moral Relativism – Stand to Reason University

#StandtoReason #STRUniversity #Apologetics #Christianity #Worldviews #Morality #Relativism

————— FIND MORE FREE APOLOGETICS VIDEOS —————

Stand to Reason University is an online training program designed to produce a particular kind of person: an effective ambassador for Christ. Using short, interactive, and engaging courses, STR U equips Christians to make an even-handed, yet gracious defense for Christianity and Christian values in the public square.

————— DISCOVER MORE FROM STR —————

————— CONNECT —————

————— GIVE —————

[STRvideos]

Atheists who want to be consistent have to deny an obvious feature of reality: objective morality, and it’s an awfully high price to pay. The problem with relativism grounded in human subjects is that humans are multiple and they are whimsical. There are many of them, resulting in many “moralities, ” and their moralities change over time because they are not grounded in anything fixed and moral in itself.

But [God] is a personal being, but he is also the ground of being. He doesn’t arbitrarily give commands according to his changing whim—ordinary subjectivism—because God doesn’t change. Rather, his commands flow forth from the objective quality of his unchanging, morally perfect nature.

Here are some additional resources on relativism:

Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air

Relativism Self-Destructs

Encountering a Relativist

A Society Where Justice Is Grounded in Preference

“Society Says” Relativism

[philjohnsonjohnson]

This was such a great teaching video. I have listen, read and viewed a number of Mr. Koukl material about Relativism, but this video was concise and easy to digest. Great job!

[lopinitupou]

Good content
Thank You so much for this.
God bless you.

[michaeldickerson]

Very compelling! Could you share how to access the course? I tried clicking the link, but only two courses appeared, and neither was the course on moral relativism. Thanks so much!

[dw]

Of course those who claim to be relativists will object to this, but they will give you all sorts of reasons why you are wrong…

[peterg]

“You shouldn’t force your morality on me.”
“Why not?”
“Because I don’t like it (though I might like it at a different time or in a different context, perhaps based on mood, and it still might be a mood I never have, though I cannot say for sure).”
Likewise, the therapist could say, “I don’t like being judged.” Don’t say, “It’s wrong to judge, ” because some people might like it and want to be judged. And the inconsistent application of one’s morals seems perfectly at home with relativism. I might even argue that all moral systems depend on inconsistent behavior.

[quichrlyn]

fatal flaws:
1. if moral relativism is true, no one can be accused of doing something wrong.
No, regardless of the actual reality of morality in our universe, people will continue to accuse others of doing what they believe is wrong. And even if everyone could agree that moral relativism was true and even if moral relativism actually was true, we as humans can agree certain things like murder produce generally unfavorable outcomes, like greif, pain, sadness, etc., and it results in human suffering. once we agree that murder results in human suffering, we just have to agree that human suffering is bad, that is, we dont like human suffering for whatever reason. we dont have to agree that human suffering is objectively bad, just that we each dont like it. this is an example of something that the vast majority of the human population would almost definitely agree with. once we agree human suffering is morally bad or wrong, or we all dont like it, we can take steps to reduce human suffering so we dont have more of that which we do not like, which would in turn, result in what we do like. so if there is a conflict where one person says murder is morally right and the other says it is wrong, the second person can convince the other person that it is in their best interest not to murder by appealing to their sense that human suffering is wrong and stating that murder results in human suffering.
2. in relativism, you have no basis for complaining about the problem of evil.
Yes we do. The problem of evil in simple terms is a argument against god's existence that poses the existence of evil in the world against a supposedly all good and all powerful god. it then asks simply "why does evil exists if god, the all good being exists? why would he create a world with evil? or if he did, why does he not stop it?". So the supposed problem here is that there cannot be evil if there is no objective morality, which is a flawed idea. we can think of evil as simply something that causes a person to be unhappy or feel sad or some negative emotion, broadly speaking, assuming relativism is true. we can reformulate the question: why, if there exists so much that causes people to be unhappy, does god not do anything about it? why does god not seek maximum pleasure for his creation?" you pose the question sarcastically "how could a good god allow things that i personally dont like" as the new question for the problem of evil in the relativist's view. to this i would say, yes! how could he? pure good would mean that everyone is happy, content, etc., how could this good god allow such a creation with such a severe lack of happiness? happiness is not an objective idea, it is relative to each person. in a perfect world, everyone would be happy, so why arent they if god is perfect?
i was going to do the other flaws as well, but i began to sense a theme in this video that follows an inconsistent argument with reality. you would say something like "if it seems weird that people cannot be blamed or praised, then relativism is false". this is really ironic because it uses the listener as the main arbiter of what is or is not true, which is the crux of the idea of morality, is it not? just because something seems like it is true, doesnt mean it is. just because it seems so obvious that murder is wrong, that doesnt prove its truth. i have a thought experiment for this line of thinking. if we should trust our moral intuition which tells us objectivism is true, that murder is wrong, etc., then what about other species? what about aliens on another planet a billion lightyears away? if objective morality is true, and murder is wrong here, it must also be wrong on this alien planet, right? what if on this alien planet, organisms need to kill each other to gain the other's life force, or for some necessary function? what if the aliens there deem murder a perfectly fine and necessary part of survival and ensuring a long and happy life? to them, to their intuitions, murder is morally right. but to our intuition, its wrong. so what are we to do about this? do we simply say that those aliens and their intuition is wrong and they should all stop murdering immediately regardless of the consequences? possibly. whats more, how do we know that our moral standard is correct and theirs is wrong? out of the many possible alien civilisations of intelligent organisms, how do we know we developed in such a way to have the correct moral standard?

[theboombody]

If we define moral nihilism and moral absolutism as follows, where would moral relativism fall?

Moral Absolutism = at least one moral principle cannot be destroyed by man.

Moral Nihilism = every moral principle can be destroyed by man.

[geraldharrison]

But moral relativism is entirely consistent with moral objectivism. Shape, for instance, is a paradigm example of an objective property. Yet an object's shape is relative. It can be one shape at one time, and a different shape at another.

Relativism - at least in the moral context - is the view that moral properties can vary. What's right in one context may be wrong in another. An action's rightness or wrongness is 'relative' to something, then - typically to its consequences and intentions (virtually no one would deny that morality is relative to that extent). The more controversial version of moral relativism is the view that morality is relative not just to consequences and intentions, but also to time and space - that is, that what is right here and now, could in principle be wrong over there or later, holding other things equal. Note, when people say 'morality is relative' they typically mean to express the more controversial 'relative to time and space' version of the view.

The opposite of relativism is 'absolutism' (not - note - subjectivism....subjectivism is the opposite of objectivism).

Absolutism is the view that morality is not relative. And as 'relative' is normally taken to mean 'relative to time and space', 'absolutism' will typically mean 'does not vary over time and space' (after all, absolutism is implausible if it is the view that the morality of an act is not relative to anything at And among absolutists many would hold that morality 'cannot' vary over space and time (that's a stronger claim than that it merely does not). To hold that morality 'cannot' vary over space and time is to hold that moral truths are necessary truths.

The important point is that relativism and absolutism are opposing views about how moral properties BEHAVE.

Subjectivism and objectivism are opposing views about what moral properties are made of. That is, they are opposing views about morality's composition. Not its behaviour then, but its composition.

Subjectivism is the view that morality is made of subjective states. Objectivism is the view that it is not.

Morality is subjective, not objective. If it was objective, it wouldn't require God! God's a subject - a subject of experiences, a mind, a person. And morality is made of God's subjective states. So it is SUBJECTIVE, not objective.

There are a lot of theists who are promoting the idea that morality is objective. No it isn't. Objectivism is the enemy! Again: if morality is objective, then it doesn't need God.
There are also a lot of theists out there who seem to think that morality is absolute in the strong 'necessary truth' sense of the term. That is, they believe moral truths are necessary truths.

That too is really an enemy-of-theism view that should be attacked, not endorsed. For if moral truths are necessary truths then God does not exist. God is omnipotent and so can do anything. That includes changing what's right and wrong. Thus, if God exists then moral truths are not necessary truths (indeed, there are no necessary truths if God exists, for God can falsify any proposition whatsoever).

[stevesmith]

I can't tell if you're arguing against idea of Moral Relativism or the people who believe in Moral Relativism?

[tgm]

This can't be compelling to those who recognize that Greg's usage of "moral" already entails his god. As his point is rendered circular, there isn't anything to chew on.

[bartstinson]

Killing an abortionist isn't attributable to moral relativism if it protects and rescues an intended abortion victim from homicide.

[petermatyas]

these points are all wrong, actually, as a criticism, as they make incorrect assumptions.
1. Yes, this is true, no one can be _objectively_ accused of anything. But this is not needed, as morality is a group thing - defines "us" versus "them". We are the ones who accept XYZ moral statements, subjectively if you will, and those evil ones accept ABC instead, and thus we are enemies. Christianity itself offers a boatload of examples, see heresy claims.
2. It's fine, I never liked that argument, even though I am a firm atheist. If we consider an omniscient God as opposed to non-omniscient humans, we are not in the position to say that evil actually exists, we don't know enough. Especially not as opposed to an omniscient God, who would have a better understanding of the affairs. Yes, life might suck, but probably it is the best available. Or God's plan, or whatever. The problem of evil is not the basis of my atheism.
3. Sure we can - praise means "you are one of us", blame means "you are not one of us = potentially, or even likely, you are an enemy". See 1.
4. Yes, because there is no direction towards which you can "improve". Except, again, the fitting to your ingroup. You can be a better member. This if of course subjective, as no groups are universal.
5. I don't want to promote tolerance, it's stupid. What we have is "recognizing similarity, so there is nothing to tolerate at all", or enmity, if this is not given.

[johngriffiths]

Moral relativism is a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons. If God exists and is the source of morality, then moral relativism is true. Is Greg therefore arguing against the existence of God as the source of morality?