Relativism - The doctrine that no ideas or beliefs are universally true but that all are, instead, “relative”.
While the readers of this article may not be familiar with this popular philosophy called (moral) relativism, you may probably be familiar with what it looks like, for it is one of the most prominent worldviews which dominate our culture today. What does it look like? Have you, or someone you know, ever said, “You have your truth and I have mine”? Is it possible for one person to have a set of beliefs that they call true, and for another to have a completely different set of beliefs that they call true, and at the same time both individuals be right?
In this article, I will attempt to clarify and reveal, what I consider, an empty philosophy, which contributes very little to a world that is in desperate need of moral clarity. While one could illustrate more examples, I will bring to the reader’s attention four types of relativists...
The first relativist I will introduce espouses certain standards about what is right and wrong, yet has problems attributing any absolute standard of right and wrong to God or the Bible, thus clinging to a pseudo-moral viewpoint which woefully leaves the rationality and intelligibility of a discussion wanting.
The relativist believes that each person can believe what they want- it is up to individuals to determine what is true and what isn’t true… but what if each individual person’s definition of truth conflict? Let’s follow a discussion I once had with a college classmate:
“Is it wrong to act unkindly and indecent towards others?” I asked.
“Well, of course it is.” she replied.
“On what basis can you say that?” I asked.
“Well, everyone knows that basic truth.” she said.
“But what if in my worldview it is ok to act unkindly and indecent towards others?”
“Well, then that’s wrong.” she said matter-of-factly.
“Wait a minute, you believe that I have the freedom to determine truth for myself, don’t you?”
“Why, yes.” She said.
“Then by saying that I’m wrong, aren’t you implying that I ought to abandon my definition of truth? …Aren’t you now holding me to your standard of right and wrong?” I asked. She could not give me a coherent response.
Some relativists also have a very warped perception of evil. As I previously noted, there are varying types of relativists. The second type I’ll describe has a problem even using the word, evil in a sentence. Radio talk show host, Dennis Prager recently had a caller comment on his use of the word, evil. Mr. Prager was referring to the killer in the recent Virginia Tech massacre. The caller said that he wasn’t sure that it was right that we call any one person’s behavior evil and preferred that Dennis Prager use a less offensive (and more politically correct) term. “What else would we call the shooter’s actions?” Prager asked. “Perhaps bad would be more appropriate”, the caller replied. “No, bad is what you say when your dog poops on your living room floor. What this man did was pure, unadulterated evil.” Dennis aptly retorted.
To say that this man would probably conveniently use the same term if it were one of his loved ones who were killed, is speculative, but even if he did, evil cannot be given the objective definition of evil solely because one has subjectively experienced evil perpetrated against them. This would merely reveal that the relativist can recognized evil, but does not necessarily define an objective standard of good and evil. And even if the relativist is able to rightly call a spade a spade, against what measuring stick does the relativist use to make his judgment? I contend that the moment the relativist begins to explain himself he will either flounder, or will come face-to-face with potentially adopting an absolutist position. Now, let’s speak to the third type of relativist who has no problem using the word, evil…
The indignant relativist may ask, “How could a good God allow evil to happen?” Rather than answering the question, for the purposes of this discussion, let’s observe the worldview which invokes such a question:
A question for the relativist: “Would you agree that there are some things that we can call evil and other things which we can call good?”
Relativist: “Why yes!”
Response to the relativist: “Is that just your own private understanding or are there some things that are objectively evil?”
In this dialogue, either the relativist confesses that there is an objective standard of right and wrong, inevitably being forced to acknowledge an objective good [God], or he is relegated to subjectivism, and if this is so, he cannot argue against evils in the world, leaving us with the forth type of relativist…
If a type of Virginia Tech massacre happened, let’s say, in the Darfur region of Sudan and was fully sanctioned by the Sudanese government, could the relativist condemn such an action, calling it evil? Maybe at first, but when their own evil (or bad) behavior is confronted, they argue that morality is in the eyes of the beholder… as Beckwith and Koukl write in their book, Relativism, “This [merely] reduces their earlier objection to, ‘How could a good God allow things that are contrary to my opinion?’”
The last type of relativist, who is confronted with every possible cogent argument to speak of, can be illustrated by the psychiatrist who had a patient who believed that he was dead. The doctor, making every attempt to convince the patient that he wasn’t dead, finally had an idea. He asked the man, “Can dead men bleed?” The patient replied, “Of course not!” The doctor then pulled a needle form his drawer and pricked the man in the finger. The man began to bleed. To the doctor’s chagrin, the patient replied, “Boy, I can’t believe it- dead men do bleed!”
This last example shows us that for some, the truth is relative to ones most deepest held presuppositions. A discussion with someone who thinks this way can be futile, not to mention absolutely exasperating.
In conclusion, the relativist’s arguments are incoherent and irrational. He demands standards while rejecting any notion that those standards are objective. He advocates freedom to believe what you want as long as it does not conflict with what he believes. Deep down, he embraces a universal standard of right and wrong, and it is almost always revealed when he is wronged.
The relativist believes that each person can believe what they want- it is up to individuals to determine what is true and what isn’t true… but what if each individual person’s definition of truth conflict? Let’s follow a discussion I once had with a college classmate:
“Is it wrong to act unkindly and indecent towards others?” I asked.
“Well, of course it is.” she replied.
“On what basis can you say that?” I asked.
“Well, everyone knows that basic truth.” she said.
“But what if in my worldview it is ok to act unkindly and indecent towards others?”
“Well, then that’s wrong.” she said matter-of-factly.
“Wait a minute, you believe that I have the freedom to determine truth for myself, don’t you?”
“Why, yes.” She said.
“Then by saying that I’m wrong, aren’t you implying that I ought to abandon my definition of truth? …Aren’t you now holding me to your standard of right and wrong?” I asked. She could not give me a coherent response.
Some relativists also have a very warped perception of evil. As I previously noted, there are varying types of relativists. The second type I’ll describe has a problem even using the word, evil in a sentence. Radio talk show host, Dennis Prager recently had a caller comment on his use of the word, evil. Mr. Prager was referring to the killer in the recent Virginia Tech massacre. The caller said that he wasn’t sure that it was right that we call any one person’s behavior evil and preferred that Dennis Prager use a less offensive (and more politically correct) term. “What else would we call the shooter’s actions?” Prager asked. “Perhaps bad would be more appropriate”, the caller replied. “No, bad is what you say when your dog poops on your living room floor. What this man did was pure, unadulterated evil.” Dennis aptly retorted.
To say that this man would probably conveniently use the same term if it were one of his loved ones who were killed, is speculative, but even if he did, evil cannot be given the objective definition of evil solely because one has subjectively experienced evil perpetrated against them. This would merely reveal that the relativist can recognized evil, but does not necessarily define an objective standard of good and evil. And even if the relativist is able to rightly call a spade a spade, against what measuring stick does the relativist use to make his judgment? I contend that the moment the relativist begins to explain himself he will either flounder, or will come face-to-face with potentially adopting an absolutist position. Now, let’s speak to the third type of relativist who has no problem using the word, evil…
The indignant relativist may ask, “How could a good God allow evil to happen?” Rather than answering the question, for the purposes of this discussion, let’s observe the worldview which invokes such a question:
A question for the relativist: “Would you agree that there are some things that we can call evil and other things which we can call good?”
Relativist: “Why yes!”
Response to the relativist: “Is that just your own private understanding or are there some things that are objectively evil?”
In this dialogue, either the relativist confesses that there is an objective standard of right and wrong, inevitably being forced to acknowledge an objective good [God], or he is relegated to subjectivism, and if this is so, he cannot argue against evils in the world, leaving us with the forth type of relativist…
If a type of Virginia Tech massacre happened, let’s say, in the Darfur region of Sudan and was fully sanctioned by the Sudanese government, could the relativist condemn such an action, calling it evil? Maybe at first, but when their own evil (or bad) behavior is confronted, they argue that morality is in the eyes of the beholder… as Beckwith and Koukl write in their book, Relativism, “This [merely] reduces their earlier objection to, ‘How could a good God allow things that are contrary to my opinion?’”
The last type of relativist, who is confronted with every possible cogent argument to speak of, can be illustrated by the psychiatrist who had a patient who believed that he was dead. The doctor, making every attempt to convince the patient that he wasn’t dead, finally had an idea. He asked the man, “Can dead men bleed?” The patient replied, “Of course not!” The doctor then pulled a needle form his drawer and pricked the man in the finger. The man began to bleed. To the doctor’s chagrin, the patient replied, “Boy, I can’t believe it- dead men do bleed!”
This last example shows us that for some, the truth is relative to ones most deepest held presuppositions. A discussion with someone who thinks this way can be futile, not to mention absolutely exasperating.
In conclusion, the relativist’s arguments are incoherent and irrational. He demands standards while rejecting any notion that those standards are objective. He advocates freedom to believe what you want as long as it does not conflict with what he believes. Deep down, he embraces a universal standard of right and wrong, and it is almost always revealed when he is wronged.
Acknowledging that this universal standard of right and wrong can be attributed to the God of the Bible would mean that he must no longer suppress the truth in unrighteousness and must repent from his way of life. His understanding of life and death, morality and immorality, of what is true and what is false, of what is objective fact and what is subjective opinion, will be viewed through the only lens that makes sense: The absolute, infallible, and inerrant Word of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment