If you have been in the pro-life movement for very long, you have certainly heard arguments supporting the theory of moral relativism.
The proponents for abortion, euthanasia, or any other aspect of the Culture of Death rely on this philosophy as their rationalization.
But how do you respond? Are you equipped to dialogue on this topic?
Even if you think you are, I think you will still gain some great insights in this three-part series, which starts with this post. We will contrast the theory of moral relativism to the Theory of Natural Law.
In this post we will explore whether the theory of moral relativism has any viability, since the Culture of Death relies on it so heavily.
In the second post we will show how exactly moral relativism relies on Natural Law to subsist. We will turn to author, C.S. Lewis for help.
And in the third and final post we will explore how moral relativists lord others, the very people they claim to be setting free. Pope Saint John Paul the Great will offer us assistance there.
Let us begin with part one.
THE THEORY OF MORAL RELATIVISM DEPENDS ON THE NATURAL LAW TO EXIST
The above subtitle seems like a contradiction, does it not?
After all, Natural Law says there are moral truths binding on all humans by decree or by virtue of their sharing in the single human nature. These are universal and irrevocable.
Thus, men owe each other recognition of individual rights, as they are inherent in each individual human being. Also, absolute truth does exist and can be known.
Whereas, moral relativism says that morality is relative, by definition. The theory of moral relativism teaches people can define for themselves their own ethics, as there are no absolute truths. Every man is an island unto himself. No one can tell another what to do.
It sounds like a decent proposition, but it has a fatal flaw that must be exposed.
THE FATAL FLAW OF THE THEORY OF MORAL RELATIVISM
To say, “There is no absolute truth” is self-contradictory.
Moral relativism relies on an absolute truth in its declaration there is no absolute truth. In other words, the theory of moral relativism says something absolutely does not exist. But to make an absolute statement admits an absolute truth. It falls on its face.
THE CULTURE OF DEATH RESIDES ATOP THIS HOUSE OF CARDS
Contraception use. Abortion. Homosexuality. Euthanasia. Embryonic stem cell research. In vitro fertilization. And on and on, the list goes.
All these components of the Culture of Death take their roots in the theory of moral relativism. This will be discussed further in the next two posts.
Until we can recognize such errors in reasoning and expose them, we’ll continue to be cooked alive like the proverbial frog in the warming pot of water.
Look for my subsequent post to discuss how the theory of moral relativism causes its proponents to contradict themselves further. They use the Natural Law to lord over others, the very people they claim to be setting free.
What’s your take on the theory of moral relativism?
Do you have another simple argument to show why it fails?
Please share your thoughts below.