Before the absolute nature of morality can be understood, morality must be defined. Morality is prescriptive (an “ought”), not merely descriptive (an “is”). Morality deals with what is right, as opposed to wrong. It is an obligation, that for which a person is accountable. [It is not just a ‘personal viewpoint’. One’s morality holds ‘weight’; the weight of justice; the weight of potential negative consequences for going against it.] (Norman Geisler)
(The following is taken from ‘The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’)
‘The term “morality” can be used either descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion… or accepted by an individual for her own behavior; or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.’
To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings. [Many, of course, believe that morality is relative; it is based upon current attitudes towards moral issues; as society’s view changes, so does morality. Thus, morality, in this popular ‘relativistic’ paradigm, is totally dependent upon and relevant to a society’s viewpoint on any potential moral issue at hand.]
Law or a legal system is [differentiated] from morality or a moral system by having explicit written rules, penalties, and officials who interpret the laws and apply the penalties. Although there is often considerable overlap in the conduct governed by morality and that governed by law, laws are often evaluated on moral grounds. Moral criticism is often used to support a change in the law. Some have even maintained that the interpretation of law must make use of morality.
Sometimes morality is regarded as the code of conduct that is put forward by religion, but even when this is not the case, morality is thought by many to need some religious explanation and justification. However, just as with law, some religious practices and precepts are criticized on moral grounds, e.g., discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Morality is only a guide to conduct, whereas religion is always more than this.
It is possible for a society to regard morality as being concerned primarily with minimizing the harms, e.g., pain and disability, that all human beings can suffer. Such a society might claim that their morality, in which minimizing the harms that all human beings can suffer is the primary concern, is based on some universal features of human nature or of all rational beings. Although all societies include more than this in their moralities, this feature of morality [(i.e., minimizing pain/harm/suffering)], unlike purity and sanctity, or accepting authority and emphasizing loyalty, is included in everything that is regarded as a morality in all societies. Because minimizing harm can conflict with accepting authority and emphasizing loyalty, there can be fundamental disagreements within a society about what is the morally right way to behave.
“Natural law” theories of morality claim that any rational person in any society, even one that has a defective morality, can know the general kinds of actions that morality prohibits, requires, discourages, encourages, and allows. In the theological version of natural law theories, such as that put forwards by Aquinas, this is because God implanted this knowledge in the reason of all persons. In the secular version of natural law theories, such as that put forward by Hobbes, natural reason is sufficient to allow all rational persons to know what morality prohibits, requires, etc.
[It is very probable that all societies that have ever existed hold to a morality that says that murder and torture of the ‘innocent’ is ‘wrong’; that ‘rape’ is wrong; that stealing from the poor is wrong; that not taking care of the basic needs of the helpless (children, elderly, handicapped) is wrong.]
(The following is taken from “Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics” by Norman L. Geisler)x
Moral absolutes can be defended by showing the deficiency of moral relativism. For either there is a moral absolute or else everything is morally relative. Hence, if relativism is wrong, then there must be an absolute basis for morality.
Everything is relative to an absolute. Simply by asking, “Relative to what?” it is easy to see that total relativism is inadequate. It can’t be relative to the relative. In that case it could not be relative at all, ad infinitum, since there would be nothing to which it was relative, etc. Albert Einstein did not believe everything was relative in the physical universe. He believed the speed of light is absolute.
[Thus, morality has to be relative to some ‘standard’, some ‘absolute’, or it doesn’t exist. Every person has their own moral viewpoint; they base it ultimately upon what they think is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.]
Measurement is impossible without absolutes. Even moral relativists make such statements as, “The world is getting better (or worse).” But it is not possible to know it is getting “better” unless we know what is “Best.” Less than perfect is only measurable against a Perfect. Hence, all objective moral judgments imply an absolute moral standard by which they can be measured.
Moral disagreements demand objective standards. Real moral disagreements are not possible without an absolute moral standard by which both sides can be measured. Otherwise both sides of every moral dispute are right. But opposites cannot both be right. For example, “Hitler was an evil man” vs. “Hitler was not an evil man” cannot both be true in the same sense. Unless there is an objective moral standard by which Hitler’s actions can be weighed, we cannot know that he was evil.
Moral absolutes are unavoidable. Total moral relativism reduces to statements such as “You should never say never,” “You should always avoid using always,” or “You absolutely ought not to believe in moral absolutes.” “Ought” statements are moral statements, and “ought never” statements are absolute moral statements. So, there is no way to avoid moral absolutes without affirming a moral absolute. Total moral relativism is self-defeating. [Making a ‘moral absolutive’ statement such as ‘everything is relative’ is oxymoronic; if everything is relative, then so is that statement. If morality is relative, then so is the moral statement that is being made there.]
If there is an absolute basis for morality, then why do so many believe that all morality is relative? The reasons for this are mostly based on the failure to make proper distinctions.
Relativists confuse fact and value, what is and what ought to be. What people do is subject to change, but what they ought to do is not. There is a difference between sociology and morality. Sociology is descriptive [(explains the facts of a society’s specific morality)]; morality is prescriptive [(states what a society’s morality ought to be…but not what it is)]. Relativists confuse the changing factual situation with unchanging moral duty.
There is confusion as well between an absolute moral value and changing attitudes regarding whether a given action violates that value. [It use to be morally objectionable to have women and/or blacks be allowed to vote; but, now, it is not. Did morality change? No; our society’s attitude toward the moral principle involving the importance of all human beings has changed. The moral principle was overlooked; i.e., that all humans are of equal value. Also, in harsh debate today, is the topic of ‘sexual orientation’. Should homosexuals be given the same rights and priviledges of heterosexuals? One’s attitude towards the moral principles of ‘marriage’ and ‘love relationships’ may be quite different than others (i.e., it is morally acceptable if 2 mature adults love each other, whether they are of opposite gender or the same).]
Often moral relativists confuse the end (the value itself) with the means to attaining that value. Most political disputes are of this sort. Both liberal and conservative politicians agree that justice should be done (the end); they merely disagree as to whose program is the best means to attain justice. Both militarists and pacifists desire peace (the end); they simply disagree as to whether a strong military best attains this peace.
Another important difference, often overlooked by moral relativists, is that between the absolute moral command and the relative way a culture can manifest it. All cultures have some concept of modesty and propriety in greeting. In some a kiss is appropriate, while in others such intimacy would horrify. What should be done is common, but how it should be done differs. Failure to make this distinction misleads many to believe that because a value differs among cultures, the value itself (what) differs.
A legitimate discussion to decide which value applies to a given situation is not the same as a discussion over whether there is an absolute value. For example, we err if we think that anyone who believes a pregnant woman has the right to an abortion places no value on human life. They simply do not believe that the unborn are truly human beings. This debate is vastly important, but it should not miscommunicate the notion that the absolute good of protecting life is the issue on the floor. The issue is whether the unborn are human persons.
(The following is taken from ‘What is Moral Relativism’ by Robin Schumacher)
Moral relativism is a philosophy that asserts there is no global, absolute moral law that applies to all people, for all time, and in all places. Instead of an objective moral law, it espouses a qualified view where morals are concerned, especially in the areas of individual moral practice where personal and situational encounters supposedly dictate the correct moral position.
Summing up the relative moral philosophy, Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, “You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist.”
In modern times, the espousal of moral relativism has been closely linked to the theory of evolution. The argument is, in the same way that humanity has evolved from lesser to greater biological organisms, the same process is in play in the area of morals and ethics. Therefore, all that can be ascertained at present (and forever) is that there is no absolute or fixed certainty in the area of morality.
Following this argument to its logical conclusion causes consternation among many, even those who espouse moral relativism. Paul Kurtz, in the book The Humanist Alternative, sums up the end result this way: “If man is a product of evolution, one species among others, in a universe without purpose, then man’s option is to live for himself”.
The problem for the moral relativist (who is most times a secular humanist that rejects God) is they have no good answer to the two-part question: Is there anything wrong with an action and, if so, why? Appealing to the relative whims of society or personal preferences doesn’t provide satisfying answers.
A better response to the question necessitates that an individual have: (1) an unchanging standard he can turn to, and (2) an absolute authority by which proper moral obligation can be defended. Without these, morals/ethics simply becomes emotionally based preferences. Rape, for example, can never be deemed wrong; the strongest statement that can be made about rape is “I don’t like it.”
In contrast to the moral relativist whose worldview is secular humanism, the Christian worldview provides a solid standard and authority that can be confidently referenced and followed. The Creator God, who has revealed Himself in His Word is both the standard and authority for morals. From God’s nature comes pure good that serves as the straight line by which all crooked lines can be corrected.
God’s image has been impressed upon humanity (Gen. 1:26-27) so that human beings instinctively know God’s moral law and what is right and wrong.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
People don’t have to believe in God to know His moral law, but in denying Him, they lose the ability to ground an objective moral law in something that transcends the physical universe. Without that transcendent God, as Dostoevsky famously observed, everything is permissible.
The tragic truth for the moral relativist is this: when you hold God’s funeral and bury His moral law along with Him, something will take His place. That something will be an individual or group of individuals who take power and, in authoritarian fashion, impose their own moral framework on everyone else. The world has already seen such things in the regimes of Stalin and Pol Pot.
The far better course of action is to thankfully acknowledge God as the true source of good and His objective moral law, which God established only for the well being of His creation.