Part Nine:  What Is Moral Relativism—and How Is It Dramatically Changing American Society? 

 Emerging from the two foundational postmodern presuppositions examined in last week’s blog post (“There Are No Absolute Truths” and “Truth Is Culturally Conditioned,” five interrelated and socially degrading postmodern creeds permeate virtually all aspects of modern society. We’ll examine the first one this week and the other four in following blog posts. (I’ll provide an apologetic response to these challenges in later posts.)

Moral Relativism

 Relativism is the cardinal doctrine of postmodernism and is central to every dimension of its worldview. It is arguably the most widespread apologetic issue in American society today. Conforming to the postmodern insistence that there are no absolute truths in any area of knowledge, moral relativism teaches that acceptable ethical behavior depends on the circumstances that define it. In other words, because peoples’ beliefs and experiences vary and are culturally conditioned, moral behavior is relative (situational) to individual preferences and cultural environments. Consequently, what was immoral in the past may not be so today. For example, during my lifetime I’ve seen views on homosexuality evolve from being considered a sin to a sickness (it was classified as a mental illness in the DSM until 1973) to an alternative and acceptable lifestyle. In short, moral relativism declares that what is wrong for some people is OK for others. I may oppose cohabitation, but people who wish to live together before marriage consider cohabitation legitimate. And for them, it is.

To fully grasp how such an alien view of morality evolved into prominence in American culture, we must understand philosophical naturalism’s formative role (see Part Two). Moral relativism’s roots dig deep into this philosophy, which denies the supernatural. Consider the following logic:

• If naturalism is correct, there is no God.
• If there is no God, people are elevated to supreme beings.
• If people are supreme beings, individuals and cultures set the standards for moral behavior.
• Since no absolute higher authority exists to set universal ethical standards (i.e., God), it logically follows that all moral perspectives must be equally valid and acceptable.
• The logical outcome: moral relativism (e.g., It’s OK to kill unborn babies and engage in adultery if you think it’s permissible).

See how this works? In a relativistic society,  people determine their own moral standards even if they oppose each other. And, as we’ll see when we examine multiculturalism and political correctness in later blogs, you and I are supposed to accept all as equally valid. In short, without God, there is no ultimate “good” to identify what is ultimately “bad.” Moral behavior is descriptive rather than prescriptive. It’s how we behave, not how we ought to behave. Thus, sin in any absolute sense is nonexistent. ©

Next week we’ll examine the second postmodern creed that permeates and influences virtually all aspects of modern society, including the Church—religious pluralism (e.g., are all religions legitimate paths to God?).