Debating Moral Relativism

It’s all relative – or so common wisdom says. Most people in postmodern society, even many who identify themselves as Christians, believe morality is relative and that each individual ultimately decides what’s wrong or right for himself or herself. Yet, how compatible is moral relativism – the belief that all values depend on an individual’s own understanding and beliefs – with biblical Christianity? Before you answer this question, consider whether God allows each individual to decide what’s good and what’s bad, or whether he sets absolutes that are independent of what people think. I explore these ideas in the following sections.

Seeing why moral relativism is popular

According to Barna Research (2001), 75 percent of all Americans and a whopping 96 percent of all teenagers believe that morality is relative to individuals. It’s easy to understand the stronghold that relativism has within society today – it allows me to have a belief in God and the reward of heaven in the future, yet still live the way that I want to based on my own moral code. Not only is relativism convenient, but it’s also a natural follow-on to other individualistic trends in modern society, including

Politics: To many people, absolutes are passé, throwbacks to days gone by of monarchies and absolute governments, overbearing Church authority, and rigid public moral codes. With the fall of communism and the rapid spread of democracy, except for China and a few third world holdouts, the world is turning into a group of self-ruled democratic governments.

Culture: Following close behind this spread of political freedom is cultural individualism, the practice of each person doing his own thing, going his own way. This individualistic perspective has given way to people not only doing whatever floats their boat, but also wanting to go the next step and claim final say on what is ultimately right or wrong in their lives. In this light, then, abortion is naturally a personal issue, not something that the state should be involved with.

Societal change: The transient nature of society – frequent geographical moves and the turnstile job market – has further turned society from being community-based to being individual-oriented, in which one moves from place to place or job to job with little loyalty to anyone but himself or herself.

Entertainment: The entertainment industry is also highly oriented toward the individual. Entertainment used to consist primarily of cinemas and three network TV stations. Today, DVDs, videos, and hundreds of cable TV stations allow you to pick out exactly what you want to watch rather than be forced to deal with a decision that the program manager of the TV network made.

Technology: Technology advances also focus on empowering you to do more as an individual and rely less on others. The Internet is perhaps the best example of this. You can shop without leaving your home, become your own travel agent, publish your own book online, and access the latest data without travelling to the library. As a result, technology caters to your every whim.

Winston Churchill said that his fellow citizens had no permanent friends, just permanent interests. Contemporary society puts a twist on Churchill’s statement; society says that no permanent marriages, friends, or jobs exist, just temporary interests. By and large, society has become a collection of rugged individualists, each doing his or her own thing, coming together for temporary relationships that serve their present self-interests and moving on when they decide that fulfilment lies somewhere else. In the next section, I show you how this reality, which is a clear indication of society’s values, contrasts sharply with Christianity.