Home » Culture

Why Moral Relativism Does Not Work!

10 February 2010 2 Comments
Just now, just before I type this piece, with a little bit of help from the cut and paste, as a matter of fact, I have been listening to an mp3 interview with Tim ‘the Cardiologist’ Keller, and in the Q & A time, someone asked him a question in the context of moral relativism.  In answering this question, Keller referenced the following article, out of The Times newspaper in the UK, which is one of those rare jewels, written by an Atheist, accepting that a viability of belief in God makes an argument for moral objectivism, or the belief in moral absolutes, more coherent, to say the least.  Here are some of the seminal sections from this piece by author, Antonia Senior…
It is so easy to be a moral relativist. It means never thinking through an argument, never offending anyone, never feeling as if you are channelling the unsavoury views of a lunatic fringe. Relativism has a long tradition; the Greek historian Herodotus had some relativist sympathies in the 5th century BC.

It took off in the 20th century, prospering in a haze of post-colonial guilt, feeding off a desire to atone for our forefathers’ racism and assumptions of superiority.It is a moral code for those who do not want to be impolite or rude. It’s the ideology of holding hands in a circle or drinking tea together. Small wonder it has been so seductive within these shores. Moral relativism, as philosophies go, is just so nice.

It’s a shame, then, that it is also incoherent, logically flawed and utterly tired. Few philosophers take it seriously any more. Yet having escaped the ivory towers, it has taken on a life independent of the theorists. It sits at the heart of our society like a jolly, beaming tumour, eating away at our ability to take on the BNP and their ilk.

After making the case that moral relativism is an unwarranted and incoherent system, Senior affirms the following…

The only way to decide if a proposition is true or not, or if an action is right or wrong, is to test it and debate it. This takes more rigour than a lazy assumption that all views are truth and rightness is relative. It’s also tricky if you are an atheist, as so many of us are. Religion is like a moral short-cut, providing a template against which you can test moral propositions. Without God, certainty is even harder to come by. Who am I to say what is right or wrong? A little divine back-up would be useful, if only I could find a scintilla of faith. (Emphasis Mine)

You really should read the whole article, as such will give you a greater understanding of her argument and the context with which Senior is speaking against.

However, her words here are worth remembering…

It’s also tricky if you are an atheist, as so many of us are.

Tricky?  Sounds like an example of good old British understatement to me, but at least see is honest!  Honest?  Is that a moral category?  Mmm

Anyway, you can find the whole article HERE!

I would encourage all readers, assuming most of you are followers of Christ to take note of this article, and bookmark it for further use, as if you are entering the conversation in our culture, such will be a handy addition and ammunition is your arsenal!

For the Fame of His Name

Man of Spin

  • Share/Bookmark

2 Comments »

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.