Moral relativism or objective morality? (Level 1 discussion)

Before reading below, I recommend you read my post - What is the Faith Pyramid?

This is a Level 1 discussion, because the question of God's existence is closely related to the source of morality. If naturalism is true (and God does not exist), then moral relativism is true. If God does exist, then objective morality is true, because humans are then not the "inventors" or morality.

Moral relativism is the view that there are no universally valid moral truths. According to this view, morality is completely dependent on personal belief or opinion. This view is the result of various anthropological studies, which have observed various cultures practicing apparent differing ethical standards. What are we to make of the fact that some cultures more readily practice euthanasia on the sick and elderly or commit a relatively high number of abortions? In numerous western societies, many view these actions as “merciful” or a matter of “personal choice.” Likewise, in these same societies, there are those who view these acts as “murder.” Doesn’t the fact that these views are opposed to each other (and the fact that we cannot seem to find agreement) imply that more relativism is true? Furthermore, moral relativism has found even more strength in our current postmodern context. Postmodernism has completely undermined the existence of objective truth and has perpetuated the idea that there is no “meta-narrative” (or “story” that applies to everyone). Furthermore, in our postmodern context, the desire for truth is being replaced with the desire for pragmatism. People, including Christians, want to be told why living a particular way works better, not why living a particular way is right or wrong.

Objective morality, on the other hand, teaches that morality is completely independent of personal beliefs or opinions. According to this view, morality is not something that is “invented” but is something that is discovered. Examples of objective moral claims would be statements such as, “murder is wrong,” “rape is wrong,” or “torturing children for fun is wrong.” These are thought to be “objective” and “universal” moral claims, because it does not matter what people believe regarding these assertions. These assertions are thought to be just as true as “2 + 2 = 4.” In fact, even if a meteor destroyed the planet and no humans survived, these moral claims would still be true.

Now that I have explained both views fully, I will now refute moral relativism and argue in favor of objective morality. First, moral relativism cannot be justified simply by the fact that there are various ethical standards within cultures or even between cultures. Logically, it is a non-sequitur (does not follow). The fact that Culture A and Culture B disagree about the truthfulness of X does not necessitate that Culture A and Culture B must both be correct about the truthfulness of X! In fact, the Law of Non-Contradiction prevents both from being correct (assuming they logically contradict one another), although it is possible for both cultures to be incorrect. Furthermore, we might be thinking too “shallow” if we conclude that a culture that disagrees about the morality of abortion is actually differing on a moral principle. Although the issue of abortion has enormous moral implications, the fact is the argument is over the facts – not the morality! Pro-Choice proponents tend to be just as opposed to “murder” as Pro-Life proponents. The disagreement is about whether abortion is, in fact, “murder.” This extends to the actual metaphysical argument of personhood. As a Pro-Life proponent myself, I can assure you there is no “middle ground” on this issue. Obviously, if a Pro-Life proponent literally believes an unborn child is a “person,” and that terminating the pregnancy would be murder, it would be highly immoral for the Pro-Life proponent to compromise.

Not only does moral relativism fail, but also “objective morality” is intuitively known and proven to be correct. This is clear from the moral claims I stated above. I propose that cognizant, sane people immediately know that murder is wrong and that committing such an act is inherently shameful. It is not merely “wrong” because of the time-period and/or culture one is found. If this is not true, then (presumably) Hitler was not morally wrong, because in his time and context, he personally believed he was doing something good by committing genocide. Such a view is repulsive to our basic intuition.