Posted on Tuesday,

One Question That Will Remind A Moral Relativist Of What They Already Know

In a culture that is caught in the riptide of relativism, how do you help people come to their moral senses?

Ask them a question.

In love, let them wrestle–and if need be squirm–as they process real world scenarios. Why? Because relativism flourishes in the abstract but evaporates in our everyday experience.

Help Your Relativist Friends Gain Moral Clarity By Asking A Question

Let’s imagine a typical conversation. Here’s how this might play out:

YOU: If I understand your view, are you are saying that what is right or wrong or good or evil depends on the individual or culture?

FRIEND: Yes. What is morally good for you may be different than what is morally good for me.

Here is the question…

YOU: That’s an interesting way to think about things. Can I ask you a question? Are you really saying that there is no moral difference between Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler?

FRIEND: ummm….

YOU: It seems to me that moral relativism would leave us in the frustrating position of not being able to say that there is a moral difference between Adolph Hitler and Mother Teresa. But that is obviously false. The only way to do so would be to appeal to an external standard of morality beyond individual preferences or cultural agreement. Yet, this is precisely what moral relativism denies. But surely you would agree that such a conclusion is absurd? After all, Mother Teresa lived to save lives; Hitler lived to destroy them.

Pause.

At this point, the conversation could go several different ways (which I will leave for another post). Regardless of which way it goes however, you have accomplished something VERY important. You have taken the relativist out of the comfortable rarified air of the abstract and helped him or her grapple with real life.

That’s the power of asking good questions.

A well placed question helps remind people of what they already know (cf. Romans 1-2).

If you found this post helpful, you would enjoy Moral Relativism and the Reformer’s Dilemma and How to Respond to the “That’s Just Your Interpretation” Objection

[leadpages_leadbox leadbox_id=142390346639c5] [/leadpages_leadbox]

Posted on Thursday,

Moral Relativism and the Reformer’s Dilemma

Who doesn’t admire someone who stands up for what’s right—even in the midst of passionate opposition? Figures like Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. come to mind. They were all countercultural. And most of us would agree that they affected change for the better. However, if moral relativism is true, then what is “right” is determined by whatever the majority of the culture believes. But this leads to the absurd consequence that those seeking to reform the immoral practices of society (e.g., eliminating racism) are the immoral ones because they are acting against the cultural majority. This is a powerful reason to reject moral relativism.

Our culture is full of people who take an “anything goes” approach to morality unless it hurts someone. But people can’t live consistently as a moral relativist. Why? Because deep down they believe in absolute right and wrong. They have issues that they are not relativists about. Once you challenge them, their true colors will show. And that is OK because everyone has a worldview. That is as it should be because deep down we all know that relativism isn’t the right way forward. Once we recognize this fact, then we can begin to have the more important conversation about what is truly good and what is truly evil.

Paul illustrates this point when he wrote:

“Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.” – Romans 2:14-15 NLT

Next time someone suggests that morals are relative, bring up the reformer’s dilemma and have a good conversation.

Listen to the latest Think Christianly podcast: Subscribe with iTunes I RSS

Sign up to receive our blog updates and resources via email

Posted on Friday,

If Saudi Arabia Wants to Monitor Their Women Who Are We to Judge?

Yes, you read the title correctly. Recently there’s been quite the uproar over the electronic monitoring of women situation that is occurring in Saudi Arabia. Apparently men are alerted if their women arrive at the airport to leave the country. CNN reports:

When word started spreading last week that Saudi women — already some of the most oppressed and restricted in the world — were being monitored electronically as they left the country, activists were quick to express their outrage.

But what’s wrong with that? If cultural relativism is true. If Saudi Arabia wants to suppress women’s rights, then who are we to judge? You will remember that Ethical Relativism is:

…the doctrine that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society to society and that there are no absolute moral standards binding on all men at all times. Accordingly, it holds that whether or not it is right for an individual to act in a certain way depends on or is relative to the society to which he belongs.—John Ladd

Now the problem many expressing outrage in the “civilized west” face is this: Who are we to judge what Saudi Arabia does? On what basis? Their society has decided. And it follows from cultural relativism that this or any other issue for that matter is not a question of better or worse…just different. So on this view, we in the west aren’t better when we treat women with respect and dignity, just different.

But I think the absurdity of this situation in Saudi Arabia reveals at least two things. First, the bankruptcy of the idea that morality is relative to a particular cultural moment. And second, that moral relativists become moral objectivists really quickly when an issue they disagree with is promoted. In other words, people are moral relativists until someone else’s morality deeply affects them.

There are many powerful reasons to reject moral relativism (and I’ve written on them here). But the Reformer’s Dilemma is one of the most compelling. Who doesn’t admire someone who stands up for what’s right—even in the midst of passionate opposition? Figures like Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King come to mind. They were all countercultural. And most of us would agree that they affected change for the better. However, if moral relativism is true, then what is “right” is determined by whatever the majority of the culture believes. But this leads to the absurd consequence that those seeking to reform the immoral practices of society (e.g., eliminating racism or ending the oppression of women) are the immoral ones because they are acting against the cultural majority. This is a powerful reason to reject moral relativism.

So who are we to judge? Well, we are people made in the image of God who are rational and compassionate and therefore have all of the necessary capacities to make moral judgments. And when we see other human beings being mistreated and denied the dignity and respect that is theirs simply in virtue of being a special creation of God, we are right to react with moral outrage.

*You can read the whole article on CNN here.