I was reading the responses to a woman who wrote an article on post-modern relativism. The idea behind its “true for you but not for me” is itself a self defeating argument and is symptomatic of erroneous thinking by folks who hold that view. Now, its really just a conversation-ender so no uncomfortable awkwardness arises from disagreement. But for those who want to wrangle about the issue it tends to point at the moral argument for God. But, as some would have it, their claim that no moral absolutes exist are defended vehemently and they argue for that position. Whats really interesting is that to argue for one position or the other demands a right and wrong, a right and wrong logic or conclusion. In short, for the relativist to make his case he must use the absolutists tools to make the case. If it were true that the world ran on relativism, one would not need to argue to begin with because right or wrong would never arise as a necessity to coherent thinking and doing. This is where relativism is betrayed by his adherents. They argue for non-absolutes with an unsaid absolute paradigm that there are no absolutes. confusing?
The question arises; why defend a position that is intrinsically relative? Because to be right and logical is a characteristic of good reasoning which demands absolutes. So, how does this correlate to moral absolutes? Simple; right and wrong, good and evil exist because they are not mental constructs; nor are they ethical conclusions based on consensus. Murder, theft, lying, adultery, coveting are always wrong and they eventually emerge in every known culture. Even if the ethics of the Nazis held to the murder of Jews, the rest of the world recognized that such murder is reprehensible and immoral. Lying, the willful deception committed by one person to deceive another is always wrong where there is harm to another. Im discounting magic tricks Therefore contracts are made to stipulate conditions so that the chances of deception or mistakes are minimized. These are recognized the world over and have been recognized since the beginning of mans existence.
The question arises; where did these morals originate? The scriptures claim that God created them. He created them in two forms, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the revelation of Gods word to his chosen people. The first deals with mans knowledge of good and evil as he acts in a rebellious autonomy alienated from God by wicked works and evil thoughts. The second by specific truths revealed by God on who God is, what man is, and how man may serve both God and man acceptably. No matter which direction man may go, he cannot escape the origination of good or evil as defined by God.
Nature or materialism cannot supply ethics or morals for the thinking man. Materialism has no way of producing the dilemma of “should I lie or should I not?” It cannot provide even the hint of a concept of “who is the true God”? Nor can it provide the slightest insight into logic or mathematics. There are no abstractions contained within a materialist world. Man is forced to take for an absolute that the transcendent exists, that other beings exist outside of himself whether he agreeably acknowledges them or not. It is because of this epistimological mountain the Atheist and Skeptic must remain in the valley of irrationality. They must deny what everyone else knows and need not prove. Because of that, denial of moral absolutes requires suppressing what is understood among all men and claiming that morality is just a human construct incapable of extending beyond the consensus of like minded individuals.
The history of the world has shown situational-morality to be a monstrous lie and the avenue to genocides, murders and national catastrophe. Immorality may have its day in the sun, but its remembrance is held in infamy.