Relativism is corrupt
Image via WikipediaThis is essentially asking if there is a transcendent ethical standard that exists beyond the individual and if so, can we all know it.
Our culture is deeply divided over such a question, though we never really ask it out loud, for to do so would expose our deep relativism and the folly of such thinking.
Relativism supposes that there is no such thing as absolute truth and therefore no such thing as an absolute moral code.
Theoretically, every individual’s ethical standards are valid and unassailable as long as they remain personal. From the outside, we view each other’s moral standards as “preferences” for they do not apply beyond the self, nor can they.
Now to the astute, the above description is immediately recognized as logically false for it expresses within itself an absolute ethical code. That is, it declares that it is “absolutely wrong” for you to impose your ethical standard on anyone outside of your own preferential boundary.
Not only is relativism self-refuting from the inside, but it is unworkable on the outside. If everyone’s “preferences” are valid, then no one can legitimately say the thief or rapist or murderer is wrong. To do so would violate the absolute ethical standard that there is no absolute ethical standard.
The true relativistic culture ends up in chaos.
That is, until one with the sharpest bayonet becomes emperor, throws out relativism and by force establishes his own personal preferences as absolute.
So true relativism cannot work or last long.
In fact, I have never, ever met a true relativist. Most “relativists” whom I have engaged are “partial relativists” who intuitively know that somewhere within their relativism they need to have some “absolutes”. Most express this absolute in this way: your personal ethics are fine as long as you don’t hurt anyone else.
Now this is actually a good step for a relativist to take and you should commend them for taking it.
Of course, this opens up a fascinating dialogue on what “hurt” means:
-Does abortion “hurt” the child that it kills;
-Does abortion “hurt” the mother now that we know about the reality of post-abortive syndrome;
-Does it “hurt” a child to make them eat their green beans;
-Does it “hurt” a teenager to tell them to be home at a certain time;
-Does it “hurt” someone to raise their taxes or make them buy insurance if they don’t want to or take half of their father’s estate at his death?
In most of my engagements with “relativists” the absolute of “not hurting someone” gets a little foggy at this point.
The biblical worldview perspective, on the other hand, would answer the question with a “yes” for it holds that there not only is a transcendent ethical code, but a Transcendent Being from Whom the ethical code is not only expressed, but from Whose nature the ethical code is derived.
And, it is expressed in such a way that all men know it.
-Romans 1 declares that all men are without excuse because God’s eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen through what He has made.
-Romans 2:15 declares that these things are “written on the hearts” of man.
Therefore, there is a “natural” understanding of ethics that all men are privy to.
However, the fallen nature of man rejects that which is plain and written on our hearts in order that we may follow our own desires and to do so without condemnation or restraint. We then create the notion of relativism to somehow make us believe that our selfishness is legitimate.
The bottom line here: yes there is a transcendent truth and a transcendent moral code that we all can know…but we don’t want to know it or follow it because we believe that happiness and satisfaction will come from following our own desires and plans.
The latter, of course, is a dastardly lie.
