The Shortcomings of Moral Relativism: Part 2
Weaknesses of Moral Relativism
While moral relativism is widespread and enjoys tremendous appeal, it has many shortcomings. First, the cultural anthropologists emphasized moral differences over moral consensus in their observations. It turns out many moral concepts, such as murder, are universal. Second, many differences in cultures were differences in moral practices, not moral belief. Third, it does not follow that differences in practice mean there are no moral absolutes that transcend culture. Fourth, if all morality is relative, there is no way to settle competing claims. Fifth, an extension of the fourth objection, obviously immoral acts or persons cannot be appraised as such. The relativist has no transcendent morality to appeal to in the case of a Hitler for instance. Sixth, moral reformers are “immoral” in light of relativism. Martin Luther King, Jr. went against the popular consensus at the time. If it is true that morality is determined by the society at the time, then Dr. King acted immorally. And finally, moral relativism’s claim that moral absolutes do not exist is self-refuting. The claim itself is an absolute.[18]
How then do we respond to assertions that we cannot know reality, but only access it through language and interpretations? First, let us look at some initial instances of knowledge, then, using further examples, see if we can demonstrate with reasonable confidence that we do have epistemic access to reality.
In the realm of science, we know that two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom combine to create water. We know that nuclear power uses exothermic nuclear processes, like fission, to create heat and electricity.
Medically, we know that analgesics are used for pain relief. We know that chemotherapy is used to treat cancers and not other diseases. We know that a virus is an infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of other organisms and that treatments for bacterial infections are not effective for viral infections.
We have mathematical knowledge, that 2+2=4. When determining the lengths of the sides of a right triangle, we know that a2 + b2 = c2 always. We have historical knowledge, such as George Washington being our nation’s first president. We know that John F. Kennedy was assassinated on 22 November 1963 in Dallas, Texas.
We have personal knowledge of truths about our families and ourselves. I know that I married my wife on 11 July 2009 after a courtship of only several months. I know that nine months later she was killed in an accident on our property. I know that she was from Ohio, and I am from South Carolina, yet we met and married in Montgomery, Alabama. I know that she was nineteen years my junior. I know she was an enlisted member of the Air Force, I was an officer in the Air Force, and we both filled crew positions on the C-130 tactical transport aircraft.
So what is going on inside us when we do know something? Do we have good reason to believe we have epistemic access to reality? Looking at rather ordinary examples, I will try to build an affirmative case for access to reality that is not mediated by interpretations.[19]
When a toddler learns to identify an object, a ball for instance, she may be shown pictures of the ball and have the word “ball” repeated to her by her parents. Over time, she is able to identify balls of varying colors and sizes. In order to do so, she has to see the pictures of the balls for what they are and hear the word “ball” for what it is. Thus, she develops a concept of “ball.”
When I access my bank account online, I have to enter a specific web address to get to the bank’s page. Then I have to input a username and password to get to my information. To do so, I have to see the letters and digits for what they are, then press the corresponding key.
Many years ago I was a police officer. I often had to radio dispatch with license plate or driver’s license information. I had to verbally relay numbers and sometimes word spellings. I then had to listen as dispatch read that information back to confirm it and later write down information that dispatch had for me. In these cases, I had to hear what dispatch said for what it was and read what I had written for what it was in order to be able to compare them for accuracy.[20]
From the example of the toddler learning and the examples of online banking and law enforcement, we see that “concepts are the intentional bridge between thought and its object.”[21] A toddler could not learn what a thing is if she could not reliably link the object to her thought of it. I could not have communicated with dispatch or checked my bank account online if letters and numbers did not directly correlate to their intended objects and meanings. Thus, it does seem that we can have access to reality and see it for what it really is. And if we can see reality as it is, then we can, contrary to postmodernists and other relativists, develop a concept of objective truth. This is supported by “the vast majority of philosophers [who] have held to the correspondence theory of truth, which asserts that statements or beliefs are true only if they agree or match up with reality.” [22]
Next, I'll make a case for the existence of objective moral values and explain briefly why I believe they are properly grounded in the God of Christianity.
[18] Rae, Moral Choices, 90-91, summarized. Applies to entire paragraph.
[19] The discussion regarding knowledge heretofore has been based on Dr. R. Scott Smith’s work (borrowing from his examples and injecting my own) in R. Scott Smith, Ethics and the Search for Moral Knowledge (Forthcoming: Intervarsity), 313-315.
[20] Ibid., 319-321.
[21] Ibid., 329.
[22] Groothuis, “Facing the Challenge of Postmodernism,” 240.