If you travel the world and investigate cultural norms, you will recognize that different cultures have different moral values. Some cultures attempt to make every individual equal under the law, for instance, while others allocate more rights to privileged groups. Some cultures respect women’s bodies, and others force their women to live in cloth bags (even in the heat of summer: e.g. Saudi Arabia). The moral relativist concludes from this diversity of viewpoints that no one moral stance is objectively “better” than another and thinks we should respect all opinions of morality as equal. How prevalent is this attitude? Well, in 2002, Barna Group (a polling firm in California) found that “six out of 10 people 36 and older embraced moral relativism.”
There are at least three reasons why moral relativism should embarrass any rational human being. Firstly, it denies the possibility of moral progress. Societies change over time as different ideas and norms work their way in and out of the cultural zeitgeist. Slavery used to be a good idea. Now it is almost universally rejected. The moral relativist insists that there is nothing objectively good or moral about this consensus shift. Could they be right? Is there really anything “evil” about the practice of slavery? As Sam Harris would say, we have hit philosophical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question.
Secondly (and in the same vein), moral relativism permits moral wrongs and can be used as a cudgel to bash the head of anyone who attempts to point out shocking instances of human rights abuses. Who are we to judge, the moral relativist says? Who are we to draw attention to or protest the imprisonment of people for their ideas (Raif Badawi), the enslavement of children (ISIS) or the genocide of oppressed groups (Bosnia)? Well, who are we not to speak out? Anyone who pretends to know so little about human flourishing as to permit such atrocities is an accomplice to all of the needless suffering taking place at this very moment.
Thirdly, moral relativism is self-refuting. If we are to accept that all opinions on morality are equally valid with no objective reason to accept one over another, then the relativist has nowhere to stand if they want others to accept their opinion on morality. They admit there are no universal moral principles and, by doing so, sacrifices their right to claim their view is (or should be) universal. No matter your take on moral relativism, therefore, the proper reaction is to reject it and recognize that there are indeed universal human rights we all should fight for both for ourselves and for others. One of the best ways to join this cause is to become a member of the Guilford College chapter of Amnesty International, an ambitious new club dedicated to preventing the violation of human rights abuses globally. There is, after all, a world of difference between talking about problems and putting one’s own time and energy into instigating positive change.
