Moral Relativism

• Circumstances are unique. Lying is immoral. It’s one thing that’s immoral across all cultures over all time. But rare circumstances may justify lying. I know of a young man who called a hospital and told them he was his sister’s father to authorize urgent medical care that they were refusing to administer because the girl was under 18 years old. This young man felt that his sister’s life was in danger and he needed to lie to save her. He knew his parents would give the authorization if they could, but no one knew how to contact them at that time. In this special case, lying was morally justified and right.

• Cultures are different. I consider modest dress to be universally good, a positive moral virtue. But what constitutes modest dress is culturally relative. There are remote, tropical cultures where people go about nearly naked. Women don’t wear tops. Modesty for them is a simple loincloth. People who live in cold climates typically expect to cover most of their body to be modest. Even when it gets hot, going out in public nearly naked is immodest. Within a given culture modest dress is relative to time and place. In America, standards of modesty are different at work or in school, compared to on the beach.

Many moral principles are absolute, but specific behaviors related to those principles can almost always be relative. Greed, selfish ambition, haughtiness, envy, jealousy, murder, stealing, child abuse, gluttony, adultery, profanity, and many other things are considered universally immoral by large numbers of people. Love, charity, kindness, gentleness, justice, mercy, loyalty, humor, wisdom, knowledge, and many other things are looked at as universally virtuous by most people. Specific behaviors that qualify as generous or greedy or kind or abusive or almost any other value can vary between cultures, circumstances, even individuals. When the Apostle Paul said “I have become all things to all people” (1 Cor 9:22) he was talking about modifying specific relative behaviors, not changing fundamental moral principles.

So, I see that morality is hugely relative, but that doesn’t mean that we can take morality lightly. Often people use the idea that “morality is relative” to excuse immorality. That’s irrational.

I consider pornography to be immoral. It exploits people on multiple levels. Many would agree that it exploits women, using them to make money. It also exploits male weaknesses—our addictive vulnerabilities to lust. To me, this is a universal morality principle. Many people disagree with me. Some people would say it’s relative; that for me it’s wrong, but for others it’s okay. That’s simply illogical. I consider pornography to be immoral by definition, like prostitution, greed, etc. Sexually explicit materials produced for lustful entertainment are fundamentally and absolutely wrong. You might disagree with me if you don’t think lust is bad. Our disagreement here is over the fundamental concept of lust. Is it good or bad? This is a disagreement about what’s bad, not a point of relativism where it’s bad for some people and okay for others.

Not all sexually explicit material is immoral though. Nude images used for education are not pornography. Hopefully you see the principle of absolute morality contrasted with relativity. Nudity can be immoral or moral depending on circumstances. Pornography, by definition, is used for lustful purposes which I consider universally immoral—nothing relative about it.

Similarly, money by itself can be used for evil or good. Money is neither good nor bad, but it is a common source of temptation and wrong-doing. Greed by definition is wrongful hording of money, so greed is universally immoral.

Another example would be child abuse. Abusing children is absolutely immoral, all the time and everywhere. But what constitutes abuse? Specific behaviors that abusively scar children psychologically can vary with culture and even between children. Child abuse is immoral—nothing relative about that. But spanking could be immoral, acceptable, or even healthy depending on the culture, the emotional condition of the child, and the way it’s done. That’s relative.

So, my conclusion in this matter is that many aspects of morality are relative when you talk about whether specific behaviors are moral or not, but that doesn’t erase the fact that there are universal values. When someone says something is immoral you commit an error of logic if you just dismiss them with the trite response “morality is relative.” If you disagree, respectfully accept that you live by different moral values. It’s okay to have different moral values.

So, when we disagree with someone’s values keep a few things in mind.

• There will be differences. Both sides should accept that sometimes values are absolute, but the morality of specific behaviors can be relative.

• Disagree respectfully. It’s okay to disagree about things that affect relative morality, sometimes even absolute morality. (Example: I think vulgar language is immoral, but I’m okay with the many people around me who use it. Their morals are different but it doesn’t really harm me much.)

• Find unity in common values. When people put a specific point of disagreement in a larger context of common values, they tend to feel a sense of kinship in spite of the disagreement.

• Disagreement can distort perception. You probably have a lot more in common than you think.

• Seek to understand more than to be understood. When people understand the reasons for each other’s beliefs it’s a lot easier to respect each other and interact peacefully.

• Disagree in harmony. You can usually find acceptable ways to disagree in harmony when both sides understand what the other side wants.