Relativism Revealed:

The inadequacy of moral relativism to provide moral authority

Caleb Morell

Religion B

Håkan Olsson

Kungsholmens Gymnasium

May 2, 2012

Abstract

This essay discusses moral relativism and it’s influence on society today. Here the

author uses seven arguments to demonstrate why moral relativism is self-defeating and

downright dangerous: “Moral relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing; relativists

can’t complain about the problem of evil; relativists can’t place blame or accept praise;

relativists can’t make charges of unfairness or injustice; relativists can’t improve their

morality; relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions; relativists can’t promote the

obligation of tolerance.”1

This is presented in the historical context of the Holocaust and the Nuremburg

Trials in order to demonstrate the inadequacy of moral relativism to provide the moral

authority required to condemn the Nazi perpetrators there and instead works to defend

them. The author uses the writings of prominent moral relativists throughout different

time periods to draw this conclusion.

                                                                                                               1  Relativism’s  Seven  Fatal  Flaws,  http://www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=191&journal=2&type=pdf  

Introduction

November 20th 1945 marked the beginning of the Nuremburg Trials against

prominent members of the political and military leadership of Nazi Germany for their

part in committing one of the greatest atrocities of history: the Holocaust.

The atmosphere was thick with anticipation as the world held its breath, waiting

to see how these men could defend their hideous actions. Their defense was this: that they

were operating according to the law of the land, and could not be held accountable to any

other country’s law than their own. They insisted that they all had to obey Hitler’s orders,

which had the force of law in the Nazi German state, and, hence, obedience could not be

made the basis of a criminal charge. Dr. Stahmer, acting as the defense attorney for

Hermann Goering, summarizes his stance:

From whence will they take the standard by which to decide about justice and injustice

in a legal sense? I must... vigorously protest against... threatening punishment for

crimes which at the time of their perpetration, at least as far as individuals are

concerned, did not carry any punishment... Can one expect that hereafter punishment

will be recognized as just, if the culprit was never aware of it, because at the time he

was not threatened with such punishment, and he believed to be able to derive the

authorisation for his way of acting solely from the political aims pursued?2

Dr. Stahmer raised difficult questions relating to the nature of moral authority.

The very nature of a court system hinges on accountability to a higher power based on a

set of common moral values, which, when broken result in punishment for the violator.

But who is right in this case where there are no underlying common moral values? How

could American, English and Russian law form the basis for judging Nazis? What

standard of behavior or code of law could possibly justify their condemnation of the

Nazis? What right did the Allied Powers have to call the Nazis to account for their

actions?

After rounds of debate someone, in much frustration, said, “Gentlemen, is there

not a law above our laws?” The answer of Nietzsche would be no, there is no law above                                                                                                                2  The  Trial  of  German  Major  War  Criminals  (1946),  187thDay:  Thursday,  4th  July,  1946,  (Vol.  18,  Part  7  of  8)  http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-­‐18/tgmwc-­‐18-­‐171-­‐07.shtml  

our laws. This is the view of moral relativism, the view that that every person should be

allowed to make up their own morality and live by their own set of standards of what

they think is right and wrong. It is this worldview that Dr. Stahmer adhered to in order to

defend the atrocities of the Third Reich.3

It is moral relativism that is the theme of this essay in which I will use seven

arguments to demonstrate how moral relativism is self-destructive and self-defeating. The

logical conclusion of this would then seem to be a shift to viewing moral absolutism as

the inevitable conclusion for determining morality.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines moral relativism as a belief that

“the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal,

but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.”4

This view, which sounds fair and tolerant, turns out to be the most bankrupt of all

moral systems. Here are seven reasons why.

Moral Relativist’s cannot accuse others of wrongdoing

Since according to moral relativism there are no “wrongdoings” one is incapable of

berating another for acts such as violence, racism, sexism or even murder. Since morality

is a matter of personal opinion one is unable to criticize the actions of others, as doing so

would imply that one judgment is better than another. One is completely powerless to

differentiate between good and evil as neither of these exists in an absolute sense.

This is best illustrated by part of a famous debate between atheist Bertrand Russell

and Jesuit philosopher Frederick Copleston. The former was asked,

“’Lord Russell, do you believe in good and bad?’ To this Russell replied, ’Yes’ and

Copleston continued, ’How do you differentiate between good and bad?’ Russell replied,

‘The same way I differentiate between blue and green or yellow and green.’ Copleston

then said, ‘Wait a minute, you differentiate between yellow and green by seeing don’t

you?’ Russell said, ‘Yes.’ So Copleston challenged him by asking, ‘How do you

differentiate between good and bad?’ Russell replied, ‘I differentiate on those matters on

the basis of my feelings, what else?’”5

                                                                                                               3http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=2687  4  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-­‐relativism/  5  http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm  

At this, Copleston challenged Russel’s reasoning by examining Hitler’s

Holocaust, to which Russell could not but state that Hitler too acted on the basis of what

he felt to be right. But if we follow our feelings alone, where are we going to go to arrive

at the espousing of a moral law?6

When right and wrong is no more than a matter of personal choice, we forfeit the

right to criticize others actions, even blatant examples such as the Holocaust.

Relativists cannot complain about the problem of evil

When morals are relative there is no clear “black and white” when it comes to

good and evil, everything is grey. That what is evil for you is good for me is as trivial as

what tastes ill to you tastes good to me.

Atheist turned Christian philosopher C.S. Lewis explains this in his book Mere

Christianity:

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how

had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has

some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it

unjust?”7

Without a common moral standard that transcends time and extends beyond the reach

of man’s norms and there can be no deviation from such, and thus no evil. Ironically

enough, the existence of evil is one of the common arguments used against God and thus

against absolute morality, while on the contrary it is really, in fact, evidence for the

opposite. As C.S. Lewis surmises in the quote above, our sense of right and wrong is

merely an opinion based on comparing experiences. Without “some idea of a straight

line” 8 the statement “I think that murder is wrong and showing mercy is right” is as week

as “I prefer apples and don’t like pears”.

                                                                                                               6  The  Existence  of  God,  John  Hick,  Macmillan,  Sep  1,  1964  7  C.S.  Lewis  Mere  Christianity  Touchstone:  New  York,  1980  p.  45-­‐46  8  C.S.  Lewis  Mere  Christianity  Touchstone:  New  York,  1980  p.  45-­‐46  

Relativist’s can neither place blame nor accept praise

Both placing blame and accepting praise requires recognizing a set of common

values for determining what should be applauded and what should be condemned.

Because of this nothing can be honorable, noble, praiseworthy or even blameworthy.

Oscar Wilde puts it bluntly when he says “Nothing succeeds like excess … nothing is

good or bad, only charming or dull.”9

Indifference is Oscar Wilde’s rational response to a world of moral relativism. If it

were possible to place blame or give praise than the concept of moral relativism would be

false.

Relativists cannot make charges of unfairness or injustice.

This is the problem the Allied Forces attorneys faced when prosecuting the Nazi

leaders after WWII. The court system is founded on the principle of justice before a

higher law, but relativism denies the authority of such a law. As Jean Paul Sartre

acknowledges:

“Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn,

for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself.... Nor, on the

other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that

could legitimize our behavior.”10

Since justice and fairness depend on the notion of an external standard, the absence of

such implies the non-existence of both fairness and justice. As Sartre recognizes, without

moral absolutes we are completely unable to legitimize our own behavior.

Relativists can’t improve their morality.

While one can change their personal belief, this can never constitute in an

improvement, since one’s ethics have no moral value and there is no moral law to

                                                                                                               9  Wald,  New  York  Intellectuals,  46-­‐47  10  Sartre,  Jean  Paul,  1961,  p.  485),  “Existentialism  and  Humanism,”  French  Philosophers  from  Descartes  to  Sartre,  ed.  Leonard  M.  Marsak  (New  York:  Meridian).  

compare to, such a value can never be improved upon. Richard Dawkins explains the

pitiless indifference that follows such a conclusion in his book River out of Eden,

“Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose

than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no

good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”11

Again, indifference is the moral relativist’s response to moral values, since, as one

can never become a “better person” there is no reason to try and behave according to any

moral standard. Every view and every action is equally moral and thus equally immoral

so there can be no room for any sort of objective moral improvement.

Relativists cannot hold meaningful moral discussions.

By adhering to moral relativism you choose to forfeit the right to voice your opinion

in advocating your own point of view as doing so would by to imply that your set of

moral guidelines is somehow better than someone else’s, thus causing your initial stance

that “every person should be allowed to make up their own morality and live by their own

set of standards of what they think is right and wrong” to self-destruct. Stating even the

simplest premise of moral relativism, that “it’s wrong to impose your morals on another”

is to violate the code of moral relativism. One can think it. One can live by it. But to be a

“good” moral relativist one has to keep silent about what one believes because by giving

one’s opinion on moral issues one surrenders one’s relativism.

Relativists cannot promote the obligation of tolerance.

One of the prime values associated with moral relativism is tolerance. Social

Scientist, Dr. Sidney Simon explains:

"[Relativism] does not teach a particular set of values. There is no sermonizing or

moralizing. The goal is to involve [people] in practical experiences, making them aware

                                                                                                               11  Dawkins,  Richard  (1989),  The  Selfish  Gene  (Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press).  

of their own feelings, their own ideas, their own beliefs, so that the choices and decisions

they make are conscious and deliberate, based on their own value systems."12

While this certainly sounds nice, moral relativists urgings for others to be tolerant

is self-refuting. Dr. Sydney Simon is saying that people ought to respect and show

tolerance for other’s views that one disagrees with, but the problem with this is that

without any moral authority there can be no obligation for anyone to show tolerance. A

moral relativist must even be obliged to tolerate those who are not tolerated.

Moral relativism enjoys its elevation to a higher “neutral status” as its said to be

open to all views. The self-contradiction in this is obviously exemplified when the US

Congress passed a law making it a federal offense to block an abortion clinic13 and

Pamela Maraldo, of Planned Parenthood, stated, "this law goes to show that no one can

force their viewpoint on someone else."14 This is a prime example of how moral

relativism falsely claims a neutral status while self-refuting its own claims, as all laws

essentially force someone else’s viewpoint.

                                                                                                               12  Simon,  Howe,  and  Kirschenbaum,  Values  Clarification,  rev.  ed.  (New  York:    Hart,  1978),  back  cover;  also  pp.  18-­‐22.    Quoted  in  Paul  Vitz,  "Why  Values  Clarification  Must  Be  Rejected,"  Francis  J.  Beckwith,  ed.,  Do  the  Right  Thing  (Sudbury,  MA:    Jones  and  Bartlett,  1996),  p.  83.  13  The  Freedom  of  Access  to  Clinic  Entrances  Act  (FACE).    Passed  in  the  Senate  on  May  12,  1994.  14  Francis  J.  Beckwith  and  Gregory  Koukl,  “Relativism:  Feet  Firmly  Planted  in  Mid-­‐Air”  (Baker  Books,  1998)  p.  33      

Conclusion

Despite these objections, moral relativism remains the reigning moral ethic of the

day. It is this worldview, a world without God that Nietzsche describes in his Parable of a

Madman: “I’m looking for God, I’m looking for God. We have killed him, you and I, we

are murderers. How shall we now compose ourselves? Which way are we now to turn?

Now that we have killed God? Is there any up or down?”15

What we celebrate as freedom from religious oppression and ancient morals has

resulted in the degradation of any moral foothold on which to stand, as well as any

common moral ground on which we can agree upon.

Adolf Hitler, who gave a set of Nietzsche’s writings as a gift to fellow dictator

Benito Mussolini took Nietzsche’s thinking and drove it to its legitimate conclusion

giving it a military interpretation.16 The words of Hitler are recorded in the Auschwitz

museum: “I freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and

morality [...] we will train young people before whom the world will tremble. I want

young people capable of violence—imperious, relentless and cruel.”17

One tends to forget it was the most intelligent nation in the world, at that time that

designed the concentration camps. Hitler took Nietzsche and translated it into military

theory. This is the consequence of trying to survive by espousing law without a moral

basis for decision-making.

Psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Victor Frankl himself declared:

“If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him.

When we present man as an automaton of reflexes... we feed nihilism... The gas chambers

of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the

product of heredity and environment... I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers

of Auschwitz were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather

at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”18

                                                                                                               15  Friedrich  Nietzsche,  The  Gay  Science  (1882,  1887)  para.  125;  Walter  Kaufmann  ed.  (New  York:  Vintage,  1974),  pp.181-­‐82.]    16  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/  17  In  the  Auschwitz  museum,  cited  in  Ravi  Zacharias,  A  Shattered  Visage  (Brentwood,  Tenn.:  Wolgemuth  &  Hyatt  Publishers,  1990),  p.  59.  http://www.xenos.org/teachings/?teaching=852#_ftnref2  18  Viktor  Frankl,  The  Doctor  and  the  Soul:  From  Psychotherapy  to  Logotherapy  (New  York:  Random  House,  1986)  xxvii  emp.  added  

This is the reality of a society without absolute moral law and no moral lawgiver.

This is why Dr. Stahmer demanded to know “from whence will they take the standard by

which to decide about justice and injustice in a legal sense?” Because according to his

worldview, there was to common law under which to be judged. This is what led to the

question, “Gentlemen, is there not a law above our laws?” and this is why Robert

Jackson, the U.S. Chief of Counsel for the prosecution of Nazi war criminals at

Nuremberg, made clear in his opening remarks that even the rulers of a and are under

divine authority:“The Charter of this Tribunal evidences a faith that the law is not only to

govern the conduct of little men, but that even rulers are, as Lord Chief Justice Coke

[said] to King James, ‘under God and the law.’”19

Similarly, the Chief Prosecutor from the UK, Sir Hartley Shawcross made clear in

his opening statement that “ultimately the rights of men, made as all men are made in the

image of God, are fundamental”20 Without this assumption that even the laws of man are

under a divine law, the allied forces were without the legal and moral ground to condemn

the atrocities of the Holocaust.

As society now look to the past to look to the future, the moral foundations of our

society are very much put to the test. American atheist philosopher Will Durant describes

that, “the greatest question of our time is [...] whether men can bear to live without

God.”21

This is the conclusion of moral relativism: There is no moral law in this universe,

any moral pronouncement is either utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective or emotive – there is

no moral law reflective in this universe. Anything that deals with moral law is the product

of your context and culture. When you remove moral absolutism and divine law from the

equation you are left with the empty shell of self-centered living. As the only other

alternative to belief in moral absolutism is moral relativism, which I have attempted to

demonstrate as self-defeating and inadequate to provide moral authority, we must

recognize absolute morality as the best and only way to form a common set of values in

society. To undermine this is to embrace what Steve Turner describes in the epilogue of

his poem “Creed”:                                                                                                                19  (The  Trial  of…,  1946a,  1:78,  emp.  added)  20  The  Trial  of  German  Major  War  Criminals  (1946d),  188th  Day:  Saturday,  27th  July,  1946,  (Vol.  19,  Part8  of  8),  http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-­‐19/tgmwc-­‐19-­‐188-­‐08.shtml.  21  Will  Durant,  On  the  Meaning  of  Life  (New  York:  Ray  Long  &  Richard  R.  Smith,  Inc.,  1932)  23.  

If chance be the Father of all flesh,

Disaster is his rainbow in the sky,

And when you hear

State of Emergency!

Sniper Kills Ten!

Troops on Rampage!

Youth go Looting!

Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

Bibliography:

On the web:

May  4th,  2012  -­‐  http://www.gotquestions.org/problem-of-good.html

May  2nd,  2012  -­‐http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=2687

May  4th,  2012  -­‐  http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5539

May  5th,  2012  -­‐  http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/greg-koukl-and-the-seven-fatal-

flaws-of-relativism/

May  2nd,  2012  -­‐  http://www.disclose.tv/forum/why-i-m-not-an-atheist-t60419.html

May  3rd,  2012  -­‐  http://www.xenos.org/teachings/?teaching=852#_ftnref2

May  3rd,  2012  -­‐  http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6223#_ftn8

May  4th,  2012  -­‐  http://espanol.apologeticspress.org/rr/pdfs/0903res.pdf

May  2nd,  2012  -­‐  http://reasontostand.org/archives/2010/09/13/moral-norms-vs-moral-absolutes

May  4th,  2012  -­‐  http://www.faithinterface.com.au/apologetics/seven-fatal-flaws-of-relativism

Books:

Simon, Howe, and Kirschenbaum, Values Clarification, rev. ed. (New York: Hart, 1978)

Francis J. Beckwith, Do the Right Thing (Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 1996)

Ravi Zacharias, A Shattered Visage (Brentwood, Tenn.: Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers, 1990)

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)

Sartre, Jean Paul, Existentialism and Humanism (1961)

Leonard M. Marsak, French Philosophers from Descartes to Sartre, ed. (New York: Meridian)

G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (Chicago, Moody Publishers, 2009)

Will Durant, On the Meaning of Life (New York: Ray Long & Richard R. Smith, 1932)

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Touchstone: New York, 1980)

Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape (Free Press, 2011)

Francis J. Beckwith, Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, (Baker Books,

1998)

Ravi K. Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God (Thomas Nelson Incorporated, 2004”