Moral Relativism Failure #1: Self-Refuting

Moral Relativism: There are no moral absolutes. Any assertions one makes that humans ought/ought not act in certain ways (morality) is dependent upon human opinion. An act is moral/immoral because individual humans dictate what morality is for themselves.

Moral Objectivism: There are moral absolutes. Humans ought/ought not act in certain ways because morality is independent of human opinion. An act is moral/immoral because there is an absolute standard of rightness which we are all held accountable, that is completely independent of our opinions and our having knowledge of it.

Moral Relativism is Self-Refuting:

Moral Relativism claims to speak universal truth to at least one thing - Specifically, that someone's truth can be someone else's falsehood - and therefore contradicts itself by claiming that nothing is right or wrong. If that is true (nothing is right or wrong) then why believe the relativist if he has absolutely no truth to utter?

What the relativist is saying would be the equivalent of saying, "I can't speak a word of English" or "God told me He does not exist" Such statements do not meet their own standard or criteria; they are self-referentially incoherent because they do exactly what they deny is possible. All of these statements, including "morality is relative", are necessarily false. That is to say that there is no possible way for them to be true. This is because they violate a very fundamental law of logic, the law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction states that A and non-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. For example, I cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. This would violate the law of non-contradiction.

So if I were to say "I do not exist", you would clearly see the obvious self-refuting nature of the statement. Relating this to the real issue at hand, the relativist falsifies his own system by self-defeating statements, such as "Everyone's morals are right or wrong only relative to himself." If moral claims are only right for the one who speaks them, then his claims are only true for himself, and it's very difficult to see why they should matter to the rest of us. Normally, when the relativist says, "morality is relative," he expects his hearers to believe his statements and embrace his view of reality. The position of the moral relativist fails in its own practical application.

• Objection #1: By claiming "morality is relative" one is not making a claim about morality, and is therefore not being self-refuting.

Refuting Objection:

Moral-Claim Incoherence Issue: Although the statement, "morality is relative" is not a claim in regards to morality, the implication of the assertion is nonetheless the same, thus it is still self-refuting. Since the moral relativist does not believe that any cultures values are any more correct than others, he attempts to tolerate all positions. The logic is that since there is no correct ethical system of beliefs, then we ought to tolerate the morality of all cultures.

But what does the moral relativist do with the moral objectivist who doesn't believe that all morals are correct? Christians are not relativists; we do not think that all beliefs are equal. We believe there is only one correct way to see reality and that is through God's Word, not moral opinions and cultural dictations. Yet the close-minded relativists refuse to tolerate Christianity!

The relativist's belief system forbids him to judge the exclusive belief system based on his own moral belief system and thus forbids him from making his original assertion about being tolerant; for that would be intolerant of the intolerant culture! Thus the other culture has no moral obligation to value tolerance and the relativist has absolutely no foundation for supporting tolerance. This is complete and total hypocrisy because, in actuality, moral relativism cannot tolerate any belief system except it's own, without violating its own standards. Again, the repercussions of moral relativism still fail the test of self-refutation.

Truth-Claim Incoherence Issue: Although the claim that "morality is relative" is not a moral statement, there is still a self-defeating nature that appears in its implications. As soon as a moral relativist makes an objective claim in regards to good/bad or right/wrong, their statement is no more than their opinion, and one is not obligated to it. Any ethical claim that the moral relativist makes means absolutely nothing. Even the assertion, "people ought to realize that morality is relative" is without foundation. For it is a baseless objective claim that is without warrant due to their moral relativism. This applies to any and every single ethical claim that the moral relativist makes. It is non-sensical for the him to assert this proposition and then imply a moral obligation of any kind. Such obligations do not exist within that worldview.

But even then, as I argued in the above paragraph, moral relativism is, by definition, at odds, or is contradictory, to moral objectivism (see blog of definitions) For the moral relativist, tolerance is a cardinal virtue. They believe we must tolerate all other moral systems. But then, of course, one is to conclude that moral relativists must tolerate moral objectivists, as well. Tolerance must be for every single belief. But by being tolerant of the objectivists, they are being intolerant to themselves! Either way, whether he chooses to tolerate objectivism, or not, the relativist is being self-defeating by violating the law of non-contradiction. Regardless of the relativist's moral stances, he is being intolerant, and therefore self-refuting, simply by asserting his position.

• Objection #2: Personal experience is a necessity when it comes to moral responsibilities. Without subjective/personal experience, there would be absolutely no difference between "rape" and "sex" or "taking" and "stealing" There is no Moral objectivist who can believe in moral absolutism without appealing to relative personal experience. 

Refuting Objection:

Issue 1 Moral Ontology vs. Moral Epistemology:

Moral Ontology: The study of the existence and foundation in reality of moral values and duties. (What is the existence and foundation that moral standards are based upon?)

Moral Epistemology: The study of the meaning of moral sentences and the justification or knowledge of moral principles. (How do we know these moral standards? What are the moral standards? What are the implications of these moral standards?)

The disagreement in this objection raises a concern in regards to Moral Epistemology. I have made no claims that have to do with the Epistemological implications of morality. I have been arguing against moral relativism strictly through a Moral Ontological approach. That is to say, I make no claims/mentions about the inference (Moral Epistemology) that comes as a result of a foundation for morality (Moral Ontology) Any questions raised that have to do with knowledge, insinuation, or conclusion that moral obligations bring up, are a completely separate issue. By giving a scenario, such as rape/sex or taking/stealing, the objector is raising a concern with Moral Epistemology. But I am only arguing the existence of an objective law, and that is it. Anything added on is completely irrelevent to the topic.

This objection raises no real concern to any of what I have argued and cannot be considered as even an attempt at a refutation. For it proposes not a single defeater for anything that has been said.

Issue 2 Clearing up misunderstandings:

There is some misrepresentation in regards to this persons understanding of objective morality and subjective experience. First off, it does not logically follow to say that, "since moral/immoral acts are experienced between two separate subjective individuals, therefore morality is relative." That is a non-sequitur. In the example of rape/sex; this objection assumes (does not give sufficient evidence) that since the difference between the definition of rape/sex are contingent upon someone's subjective experience, therefore the immorality comes as a result of one person conflicting suffering onto another person.

The definition of Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivism have nothing to do with "subjective experience". The objector blindly asserts that because humans experience immoral/moral acts, that therefore the act is immoral/moral because one experienced it. But subjective experience does not mean relative-opinionated morality. In the Christian-worldview, rape and stealing are immoral, independent of the acts being committed against someone. This is because God's nature is the standard for justice that exists whether someone rape/steals or not.

Thus, with a clearing up of these misunderstandings, this proposed defeater is nothing more than a misrepresentation of definitions and a lack of knowledge about God's nature in relation to our experience.