The Truth About Truth | Part 3 | Bankruptcy of Moral Relativism

Best takeaways from Gregory Koukl’s “Bankruptcy of Moral Relativism” 

Relativists claim moral neutrality. A great example of this was a speech given by Faye Wattleton.

" ... Teaching morality does not mean imposing my moral values on others. It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do ... and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves ... fundamental respect for others is morally of the highest order.  I have devoted my career to ensuring a world in which my daughter, Felica, can inherit that legacy ... America is demanding that they be allowed to mold their lives, not as an arbitrary command of church or state, but as their conscience and judgment may dictate ... to defend the rights of all people to their own beliefs. When others try to inflict their views on my daughter, anyone or me, that's not morality: Its tyranny, it's unfair and it's unAmerican.” 

Gregory Koukl Author of the Bankruptcy of Moral Relativism replies,

It seems so rational, so sensible, and so tolerant, but there is an important flaw...

1. She errs in assuming there is such a thing as morally neutral ground.

a. This is a place where one can stand with no ethical or moral implications at all, a place of total neutrality.

b. The ground is neutral. You may decide what you will do, I may decide what I will do. Each person can decide for themselves. No judgment allowed.

2. But Faye is not neutral.

a. In her article she implies that we should - whenever you hear this word you know a moral rule is coming - respect another's point of view.

b. She then asserts that any other point of view than hers is wrong.

1) It’s " unfair, " "un-American, " and tyrannous.

      2) If you disagree with her relativism, that all points of view are equally valid, then your point of view is invalid.

     3) Her argument commits suicide; it self-destructs.

3. In fact, Ms. Wattleton has her own absolute she wants to impose on other people:

a. "Fundamental respect for others is the morality of the highest order.”

b. This is a personal moral position she strives to mandate politically:

  1) "I have devoted my career to ensuring a world in which my daughter, Felicia, can inherit that legacy.”

  a. What legacy? Her point of view.

  b. How does she ensure this? By passing laws.

  2) In other words, " I have devoted my career to ensuring a world in which my point of view is enforced. "

4. I don't object to her trying to mandate her point of view politically.

a. I think such a thing is legitimate.

b. However, she doesn't think it's right.

  c. Wattleton implies she's neutral, unbiased, and tolerant when she is not. She talks neutrality, yet still seeks to "force" her viewpoint,

  d. In May 1994 Congress passed a law making it a federal offense to block an abortion clinic.

1) Current President of Planned Parenthood: This law goes to show that no one can force their viewpoint on someone else. 

2) Do you see the contradiction here? All laws force someone's viewpoint.

5. Moral neutrality seems virtuous, but there's no benefit, only danger.

a. In our culture we don't stop at "sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as [we] do---and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves, " nor should we. This leads to anarchy.

b. Instead we use moral reasoning, public advocacy, and legislation to encourage virtue and prohibit dangerous or morally inappropriate behavior.

 6. Faye Wattleton is offering an ethic that, though sounding fair and tolerant, is a bankrupt moral system. It's called relativism.

a. It's not even tolerant, as Ms. Wattleton makes clear when she suggests that her

 relativism is the highest form of morality.

b. This is very persuasive, but it's also misleading and fallacious."

Relativism does not qualify as morality. It's the same as having no morality at all.

"A relativist acts according to himself. He takes counsel from his own preferences and decides for himself according to his own interests."

Now compare someone who has no morality at all.

“He takes counsel from his own preferences and decides for himself according to his own interests. " See the resemblance?

You can test a moral system by seeing "what kind of Moral hero it produces". (pg. 9 of The Bankruptcy of moral relativism)

To test the moral rule "Love your neighbor as yourself", look at the principle in action. It produces a Mother Teresa, thoroughly selfless, always giving. The perfection of the morality of a non - violent passive resistance produces a Gandhi, etc. 

So what moral champion do relativists produce? What do we call someone who most completely lives out the ethic of relativism, someone completely unmoved by others' ideas of right and wrong and only listens to what is right for him? He's a Homicide detective's worst nightmare: a sociopath!