Moral Relativism is Dumb.

It is a scenario that plays out over and over again. A person attempts to discuss an issue and someone invariably brings moral relativism into it. In fact, one of the main problems with most people's ability to use logic is that they have been indoctrinated with the fallacy of moral relativism. If you have ever heard someone use the phrase "who is to say" or "who decides" or "what is right for one person is not necessarily right for another," you have witnessed this fallacy.

I personally think that this particular fallacy is responsible for more confusion and more bad thinking than any other concept or notion. It completely undermines one's ability to use critical reasoning.

Here is a good concise piece on the issue. There are many more.


Question: "What is moral relativism?"

Answer: Moral relativism is more easily understood in comparison to moral absolutism. Absolutism claims that morality relies on universal principles (natural law, conscience). Christian absolutists believe that God is the ultimate source of our common morality, and that it is, therefore, as unchanging as He is. Moral relativism asserts that morality is not based on any absolute standard. Rather, ethical “truths” depend on variables such as the situation, culture, one's feelings, etc.

Several things can be said of the arguments for moral relativism which demonstrate their dubious nature. First, while many of the arguments used in the attempt to support relativism might sound good at first, there is a logical contradiction inherent in all of them because they all propose the “right” moral scheme—the one we all ought to follow. But this itself is absolutism. Second, even so-called relativists reject relativism in most cases. They would not say that a murderer or rapist is free from guilt so long as he did not violate his own standards.

Relativists may argue that different values among different cultures show that morals are relative to different people. But this argument confuses the actions of individuals (what they do) with absolute standards (whether they should do it). If culture determines right and wrong, how could we have judged the Nazis? After all, they were only following their culture's morality. Only if murder is universally wrong were the Nazis wrong. The fact that they had “their morality” does not change that. Further, although many people have different practices of morality, they still share a common morality. For instance, abortionists and anti-abortionists agree that murder is wrong, but they disagree on whether abortion is murder. So, even here, absolute universal morality is shown to be true.

Some claim that changing situations make for changing morality—in different situations different acts are called for that might not be right in other situations. But there are three things by which we must judge an act: the situation, the act, and the intention. For example, we can convict someone of attempted murder (intent) even if they fail (act). So situations are part of the moral decision, for they set the context for choosing the specific moral act (the application of universal principles).

The main argument relativists appeal to is that of tolerance. They claim that telling someone their morality is wrong is intolerant, and relativism tolerates all views. But this is misleading. First of all, evil should never be tolerated. Should we tolerate a rapist's view that women are objects of gratification to be abused? Second, it is self-defeating because relativists do not tolerate intolerance or absolutism. Third, relativism cannot explain why anyone should be tolerant in the first place. The very fact that we should tolerate people (even when we disagree) is based on the absolute moral rule that we should always treat people fairly—but that is absolutism again! In fact, without universal moral principles there can be no goodness.

The fact is that all people are born with a conscience, and we all instinctively know when we have been wronged or when we have wronged others. We act as though we expect others to recognize this as well. Even as children we knew the difference between “fair” and “unfair.” It takes bad philosophy to convince us that we are wrong and that moral relativism is true.

Recommended Resource: Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air by Francis Beckwith

You are now officially the Church Lady of RIU.

I personally think that this particular fallacy is responsible for more confusion and more bad thinking than any other concept or notion. It completely undermines one's ability to use critical reasoning.

^This is very confusing. The only place I see this statement making sense to me is in the criminal justice system. Everybody should face the same sentence for the same crime no matter who you are. It's not fair that some peoplke get a slap on the wrist while another man goes to prison for the exact same charge. Other than that I think there are no hard and fast rules for everybody, I mean you smoke pot right? How can you say you don't believe that this moral relativism is valid and at the same time do something that's obviously taboo and frowned upon by most people in society? I think that by letting people think for themselves you actually increase one's ability to use critical thinking and cannot see how you could say the opposite. Your like a walking contradiction.

I remember reading about moral relativism back during philosophy work during college, a great example fo an argument that sounds great in the abstract but breaks down upon examination leading to a regress....like so

Quoting RickWhite:
"relativists do not tolerate intolerance or absolutism. "

Wow, I upset you enough that you had to make an entire thread about it, huh? We all know that doing harm to another individual is unnacceptable,so your argument about rape or murder has no significance here. We all know it isn't right to do another harm,it's accepted the world over.
What you were trying to apply this to was a conversation in another thread, about girls gone wild. You went so far in that thread as to say everything was black and white, and there is right and wrong, period. I asked you who gets to decide whether it's wrong to do the things those girls did. Obviously you think it's you. You implied that rap music and baggy pants are destrpying our culture. So obviously, your argument really is: "If I don't like it, it's morally wrong." Talk about simplistic.

Stoney McFried said:

Wow, I upset you enough that you had to make an entire thread about it, huh? We all know that doing harm to another individual is unnacceptable,so your argument about rape or murder has no significance here. We all know it isn't right to do another harm,it's accepted the world over.
What you were trying to apply this to was a conversation in another thread, about girls gone wild. You went so far in that thread as to say everything was black and white, and there is right and wrong, period. I asked you who gets to decide whether it's wrong to do the things those girls did. Obviously you think it's you. You implied that rap music and baggy pants are destrpying our culture. So obviously, your argument really is: "If I don't like it, it's morally wrong." Talk about simplistic.

Click to expand...

Hardly true when major religions advocate killing the infidels in the name of god.

the only standing arguments against moral relativism that i can see consist of old story books that people worship, seeming to always involve the justified killing of those who worship a different story book.

A point of clarification.

People often misuse the term morality and have for many years.

Morality deals with that which is right and wrong (murder, rape stealing, etc). Ethics deals with that which one should or shouldn't do given the circumstances.

Then there are things like social norms and morays. These do vary according to culture.

Things like smoking pot and promiscuity are not necessarily moral issues in the strictest sense of the word. To determine if something is an issue of morality you have to be able to connect it to a good or bad outcome. Then you get into things like proximate cause which deals with how direct or indirect a cause is to a given outcome.

Is a single cocaine use directly immoral - not exactly. But, continued use will make you an addict and likely a danger to society.

The same is true with sex. Is any one sex act immoral - no. But what about the guy who cheats on his wife and gives her AIDS?

There is also the concept of peeing in the swimming pool which seems to confound most people. Although it may not be immoral to pee in your own pool where nobody else will swim, it is clearly immoral to do it where others will.

Many, many times I hear those on the Left take the equivalent of the "peeing is not immoral" argument while failing to grasp the public pool part of the equation.

Is it immoral for a girl to show her tits for a T shirt - no, not in and of itself. But, is it immoral to market such conduct with a media machine powerful enough to create social proof and alter the collective behavior of our culture - I think so. The first part deals with the morality of peeing, the latter deals with doing it in a public pool. The problem most people have, present company included, is that they have trouble making this distinction.

The main reason people have this difficulty IMO, is because a generation of misguided educators and "free thinkers" have indoctrinated us with this fallacy.

PVS said:

the only standing arguments against moral relativism that i can see consist of old story books that people worship, seeming to always involve the justified killing of those who worship a different story book.

Click to expand...

Wrong. The fallacy fails by way of basic logic. Did you read the piece carefully?

the argument is that while some generally accepted standards are products of human nature (most involving security and survival), there are also some that are products of ever-shifting debate, thus subjective.

...instead of the rape/murder/kitten-punching/hitler argument of extremes, which your copypasta article seems to endulge in...why don't
we discuss 'age of consent' laws?

i love using this point of argument because not only is it completely subjective in nature (considering how drastically it has changed even in our parents'/grandparents' lifetimes) but it involves a generally accepted line/standard. that line/standard would of course be the difference between adults engaging in sex acts, and children engaging in sex acts. not only halfway through the 20th century, the general rule was "if there's grass in the field, play ball!". the law was amended and thus now a boy/girl is not a man/woman by default considering what god and nature have bestowed upon them in their own time.

your argument presupposes that in this situation, a moral relativist would default to the notion that "if there's grass in the field...", or even worse yet just eliminate the child/adult line all together...which of course is bullshit.

PVS said:

the argument is that while some generally accepted standards are products of human nature (most involving security and survival), there are also some that are products of ever-shifting debate, thus subjective.

...instead of the rape/murder/kitten-punching/hitler argument of extremes, which your copypasta article seems to endulge in...why don't
we discuss 'age of consent' laws?

i love using this point of argument because not only is it completely subjective in nature (considering how drastically it has changed even in our parents'/grandparents' lifetimes) but it involves a generally accepted line/standard. that line/standard would of course be the difference between adults engaging in sex acts, and children engaging in sex acts. not only halfway through the 20th century, the general rule was "if there's grass in the field, play ball!". the law was amended and thus now a boy/girl is not a man/woman by default considering what god and nature have bestowed upon them in their own time.

your argument presupposes that in this situation, a moral relativist would default to the notion that "if there's grass in the field...", or even worse yet just eliminate the child/adult line all together...which of course is bullshit.

Click to expand...

That is a good example of an ethical gray area. And this is where we depart from morals proper and get into social norms and the like.

When a person is old enough for sex is to an extent dictated by one's culture and circumstances. Years ago when the average life expectancy was 35 and women were not self sufficient, it was necessary to marry them off ASAP. In a more advanced society...you get the picture. Plus, there is obviously an infinite number of points between any two points so you get into a complex issue of line drawing.

It is important to be able to separate these issues from morals. Whether or not one should marry a 13 year old is debatable. Whether one should marry a 9 year old is not.

but see, you have to know the true definition of "morals" as opposed to the way the term is frequently used which is wrong. That is where you are confused. You raised an ethical question, not a moral one.

After thought:

A good example is bullfighting or other animal fighting. In some cultures such practices are celebrated. The question is, does this fact make these acts moral. The answer is an absolute and resounding no.

It is absolutely immoral to torture animals or to fight them for sport. People have tried to defend these parasites by arguing that they are not immoral in these other cultures and because culture determines what is or is not moral, it is therefore moral in that culture. This is a fallacy for what should be obvious reasons.

Would you argue that owning slaves was once moral because it was normal - of course not.

See, the key is in differentiating morals from ethics, norms and morays.

RickWhite said:

Is a single cocaine use directly immoral - not exactly. But, continued use will make you an addict and likely a danger to society.

Click to expand...

I guess we'd agree that someone who is so into coke that they ruin their health and bring their family down in financial ruin (spending all of the family money, losing the job, etc.) is doing something immoral.

How about someone who is somewhat moderate in their use, and just strains the family finances a bit? Immoral, or just unethical?

Some people would call any father using any cocaine at all immoral; risking addiction, playing with his health. Some people would call you immoral for smoking pot.

Who's going to decide what is immoral? You? Some guy with his interpretation of the magic spirit's holy edicts?

There are plenty of moral issues that can have gray areas. I know you like to pretend that everything is simple black/white, right/wrong, and that 'moral relativism' is a popular conservative entertainment catch phrase these days... but the world is not that simple, and moral relativism can go beyond the simple examples that your conservative entertainers use.

.......so its not always immoral to have sex with an underage person? because you decided that?

ok so who else gets to play god of what is moral and what is ethical?

what a crock.

Like Christianity,for one?

Illegal Smile said:

Hardly true when major religions advocate killing the infidels in the name of god.

Click to expand...

To answer a few posts:

Have you ever heard of the "reasonable man" standard? It is used in our Courts as a matter of standard practice. Consider the question of what conduct constitutes negligence. Courts answer these questions based on how the reasonable man would define it. If I am skipping stones out into a lake and some scuba diver is lost and happens to get hit with a stone upon ascending, few would argue that my skipping of stones was negligent. But, if I was tossing stones from a freeway overpass and hit a car any reasonable person would call these actions negligent. You can Google this.

There is also something called a line drawing fallacy which is what you guys are using. This fallacy is committed when one looks at an issue like statutory rape and reasons that there is no clear cut proper age for sex so it must be a matter of opinion. The fallacy is committed in the failure to recognize the reasonable man standard. As stated, above, while there is room for debate in this particular issue few would argue that 4 years old is old enough for sex - that just doesn't pass the reasonable man standard. Likewise if someone said sex should not occur before 25.

It also should be noted that determining age of consent is not really a moral issue - it is more of an issue of maturity. The question is not what age is it right for a person to begin having sex. The question deals with at what age the average person is mature enough for sex. People may have different views on this matter be they religion or just opinion. But, these are very different from the objective question of legal maturity. The law is concerned not with religious or personal views but with the practical question of how old one must be before they have the capacity to fully consent to sex.

Now looking deeper into what this means we see a number of issues. One is the simple question of understanding what they are doing fully and what the consequences might be. But, there is also the issue of when the average kid becomes grown up enough to engage in this type of social interaction on an equal level with an older adult. Remember, kids grow up being largely subservient to adults. It is unethical for an adult in a position of relative authority to use this inequality to coerce or intimidate a child into sex. This, and not sexual morals (which is a misnomer) is the basis for age of consent laws.

Exactly, morality is often complicated. That's how we get moral relativism. It's not always black and white, and even when someone thinks it is, others may disagree.

Leo you still aren't getting it.

I know it is hard to deprogram our brains after hearing this garbage for so long but if you look at it with an open mind it is possible.

The first step is learning the proper definition of "morality." The term is so frequently misused few know the correct meaning.

Most of the time, social norms and mores (sorry for the prior misspelling) are mistaken for morals.

From my old philosophy notes our definition was something like this:

Morality: The area of philosophy that deals with that which is always right and wrong.
Ethics: The area of philosophy that deals with what one ought to do in a given circumstance.

This stuff all gets pretty deep and I don't remember it 100% but the basic idea is that if you find yourself in a gray area you are not dealing with morality in the strict definition.

The best approach is to try not to confuse yourself with all of the minutia. Just read the original piece and think about how and why the notion of changing morality fails.

If you want, I can post a much more in depth link that will utterly confuse the shit out of everyone including me - you don't need to go down that rabbit hole. just read the OP and think about it.

Will someone point me back to the original thread that lead to this one? I want to see what the original fuss was all about.

RickWhite said:

Leo you still aren't getting it.

I know it is hard to deprogram our brains after hearing this garbage for so long but if you look at it with an open mind it is possible.

Click to expand...

The thing is, there are a lot of things that aren't universally accepted as moral/immoral. And, there are situations like the one I gave previously:

I guess we'd agree that someone who is so into coke that they ruin their health and bring their family down in financial ruin (spending all of the family money, losing the job, etc.) is doing something immoral.

How about someone who is somewhat moderate in their use, and just strains the family finances a bit? Immoral, or just unethical?

Again, who draws the line? You? Some guy with his interpretation of the magic spirit's holy edicts? Moral issues aren't always simple. Maybe some are straight forward, many aren't.

Leothwyn said:

The thing is, there are a lot of things that aren't universally accepted as moral/immoral. And, there are situations like the one I gave previously:

I guess we'd agree that someone who is so into coke that they ruin their health and bring their family down in financial ruin (spending all of the family money, losing the job, etc.) is doing something immoral.

How about someone who is somewhat moderate in their use, and just strains the family finances a bit? Immoral, or just unethical?

Again, who draws the line? You? Some guy with his interpretation of the magic spirit's holy edicts? Moral issues aren't always simple. Maybe some are straight forward, many aren't.

Click to expand...

I just finished explaining that - here.

To answer a few posts:

Have you ever heard of the "reasonable man" standard? It is used in our Courts as a matter of standard practice. Consider the question of what conduct constitutes negligence. Courts answer these questions based on how the reasonable man would define it. If I am skipping stones out into a lake and some scuba diver is lost and happens to get hit with a stone upon ascending, few would argue that my skipping of stones was negligent. But, if I was tossing stones from a freeway overpass and hit a car any reasonable person would call these actions negligent. You can Google this.

There is also something called a line drawing fallacy which is what you guys are using. This fallacy is committed when one looks at an issue like statutory rape and reasons that there is no clear cut proper age for sex so it must be a matter of opinion. The fallacy is committed in the failure to recognize the reasonable man standard. As stated, above, while there is room for debate in this particular issue few would argue that 4 years old is old enough for sex - that just doesn't pass the reasonable man standard. Likewise if someone said sex should not occur before 25.

It also should be noted that determining age of consent is not really a moral issue - it is more of an issue of maturity. The question is not what age is it right for a person to begin having sex. The question deals with at what age the average person is mature enough for sex. People may have different views on this matter be they religion or just opinion. But, these are very different from the objective question of legal maturity. The law is concerned not with religious or personal views but with the practical question of how old one must be before they have the capacity to fully consent to sex.

Now looking deeper into what this means we see a number of issues. One is the simple question of understanding what they are doing fully and what the consequences might be. But, there is also the issue of when the average kid becomes grown up enough to engage in this type of social interaction on an equal level with an older adult. Remember, kids grow up being largely subservient to adults. It is unethical for an adult in a position of relative authority to use this inequality to coerce or intimidate a child into sex. This, and not sexual morals (which is a misnomer) is the basis for age of consent laws.


Leo, did you read the OP? This is a complex and nuanced subject and it is too much for me to try to paraphrase.

All I can tell you is that the way you are looking at it is the result of the fallacy.

We all know there are issues in life that fall into gray areas - that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not something can be right for one person and not for another.

As far as gray areas are concerned, many of these are not questions of whether something is right or wrong but how right or wrong it is based on how directly it is linked to a good or bad outcome.

Your example of cocaine use demonstrates this. Being an addict is directly linked to harm, trying it less so. Some questions also represent moral dilemmas in which we don't know which is the right answer or don't have one.

One might argue that a person who tries cocaine might become addicted or even die. So then, we get into whether or not risking addiction or death is immoral. Then we are looking at risk to benefit ratio and self determination. Specifically, how much risk is there and what is a person's responsibility to others visa vi preserving one's own life vs a person's right to self determination.

The important thing here is that while we may not be clear on the answers to these questions, we can be clear that the rules don't change from person to person or from culture to culture.

While a single 20 year old with no kids trying coke might have little to risk in trying coke, few would argue the same is true for a 50 year old heart transplant patient with a wife and 4 kids. Is there a difference in the moral aspects in each scenario - yes.

The fallacy occurs when think the morality of the issue changes from one 50 year old heart patient to another. See the difference?

Basically, the OP does a good job of explaining it. My explanation is probably not as good.