Moral Relativism Leads to Absurd Conclusions
Moral relativism leaves us in the frustrating position of not being able to say that there is a moral difference between Adolph Hitler and Mother Teresa. The only way to do so would be to appeal to an external standard of morality. Yet, this is precisely what moral relativism denies. But surely such a conclusion is absurd. Mother Teresa lived to save lives; Hitler lived to destroy them. There are many reasons to reject moral relativism, but this is one of the most persuasive.
Are you following us on Twitter yet?
Are you following us on Twitter yet?
Labels: Morality, Relativism, Truth
posted by Jonathan Morrow at
11:03 AM
1 Comments:
Perhaps you can help me with this. Although I understand the moral argument for God's existence well, I don't find it very persuasive.
The problem lies in showing the second premise, "Objective morals exist," to be true. It seems that to show its truth, there's a lot of appealing to opinion, experience, or intuition. The classic example is asking people if torturing babies for fun is wrong. Now obviously most people will say no, but all you are getting is their opinion. They have been brought up to think that torture of babies for fun is morally wrong, but their opinion doesn't necessarily prove objective morality exists.
I understand that I may be confusing epistomology (how we come to know things) with ontology (actual existence), but where would I differentiate the two?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home