Moral Relativity is not Relative

It can be easily proved moral relativity is not at all what it claims. In every case where moral relativity prevails, someone's specific brand of moral relativity becomes the moral norm. We can accept truth, or we can become victims to the most powerful as they decide what 'truth' is.

In George Orwell's book Animal Farm, one of the animals' mottoes was "All animals are equal." This motto was a value invented by a self-proclaimed leadership of pigs. Due to conspiracy and pressure, the other animals came to believe the motto. So it was to their great surprise when they awoke one morning to discover the barn wall had been painted with a modified motto:

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

If what the moral relativist claimed were true, he would not be able to make his claim. In reality what the moral relativist says initially is "There is no view or value that is better than any other, except for the fact that there is no view or value that is better than any other." Ultimately and unfortunately (but predictably) the moral relativist's motto changes to

There is no view or value that is better than any other, except for the views and values that I possess.

The Netherlands is a good example. Believing that any sort of lifestyle shall be tolerated, they have come to determine that this tolerance allows them to euthanize those parts of their populace that have become a drain on or are otherwise of no use to their society.

A daughter brought home from school one day a values survey that she was required to complete. As the mother studied the survey, she became more and more agitated. Each question was asking the daughter to assign a value to something for which there was really only one truth.

Finally the mother asked the daughter, "When Martin Luther King stated that slavery was an abomination, was he right?" The daughter replied, in effect, "I agree with Mr. King that slavery is wrong, but that is just one opinion." School teachers ought to at a minimum be fired from their jobs for inculcating such obtuseness in their students.

The lifeboat question is another silly antic that occasionally appears in the classroom. It goes something like

There are 10 people on a lifeboat, and there is enough room, water, and food for 9. Which person do you get rid of?

It does not matter how many times the teachers who present such drivel hope that their students determine that their personal value would be to make do with what they have and accommodate all 10 people on the lifeboat. The only value that is of any importance is that value which comports with the truth. Teachers should not simply encourage their students to fashion their own values--they should teach truth and should be held accountable when they teach such falsehoods as 'the value of moral relativity.'

Moral relativism regarding a particular subject ALWAYS gravitates to that view or value of the subject that is considered by the most powerful people to be the 'truest' view or value. And that 'truest value' WILL be enforced by the most powerful.

So which do you want? A bedrock truth that has been true since eternity because it was established by a perfect God? His yoke is easy, and his burden is light. Or do you want to risk everything by allowing what is true to be determined by discussions in moral relativism?

Moral relativism is never relative.