Standard Bearer Academy

What Is Moral Relativism?

Moral relativism is the belief that there are no objective, universal moral truths. According to this view, right and wrong are not discovered but invented — they are products of individual preference, cultural convention, or evolutionary development. What is 'right' for one person or culture may be 'wrong' for another, and neither can claim superiority.

Moral relativism is perhaps the most widely held worldview in contemporary Western culture. It manifests in common phrases like 'That may be true for you, but not for me,' 'Who are you to judge?' and 'You can't impose your morality on others.' These statements sound tolerant and open-minded, but they contain deep philosophical problems.

The Self-Refuting Nature of Relativism

Moral relativism is self-refuting — it contradicts itself. The claim 'There are no absolute moral truths' is itself presented as an absolute moral truth. The demand 'You should not impose your morality on others' is itself a moral imposition. The statement 'It is wrong to judge' is itself a moral judgment.

Relativists cannot avoid making moral claims. When they say 'tolerance is good' or 'intolerance is wrong,' they are appealing to a moral standard they claim does not exist. Every argument for relativism smuggles in the very moral absolutes it seeks to deny. This internal contradiction reveals that moral relativism is intellectually bankrupt — it cannot even state its own position without refuting it.

Furthermore, no one actually lives as a consistent moral relativist. The person who says 'there is no objective right and wrong' still protests when someone steals their property, breaks a promise, or treats them unjustly. In the moment of being wronged, every relativist becomes an absolutist — appealing to a standard of fairness they know is real.

C.S. Lewis and the Tao

In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis argued that all civilizations throughout history have recognized a common set of basic moral principles — what he called 'the Tao' (using the Chinese term for 'the way'). These principles include the duty to care for children, the prohibition of murder, the obligation of honesty, the virtue of courage, and the duty of justice.

Lewis demonstrated that these moral principles are remarkably consistent across cultures that had no contact with each other. Ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Chinese, Greek, Roman, Hindu, and Jewish moral codes all affirm the same basic ethical truths. This universal moral consensus is evidence not of cultural invention but of a moral law written into human nature by a moral Lawgiver.

Lewis warned that the rejection of this universal moral law — the Tao — would lead not to freedom but to the 'abolition of man.' If we reject objective moral truth, we lose the very basis for human dignity, rights, and civilized life. Without a fixed standard above human will, power becomes the only arbiter of right and wrong — and the powerful will define 'morality' to serve their own interests.

Cultural Relativism vs. Moral Absolutism

Relativists often argue that the diversity of moral practices across cultures proves that morality is culturally constructed. Different cultures have different customs regarding marriage, property, dress, and social behavior — therefore, they conclude, there are no universal moral truths.

But this argument confuses moral principles with their cultural application. The principle 'murder is wrong' is universal — but different cultures may define 'murder' somewhat differently (distinguishing it from killing in war, self-defense, or judicial punishment). The existence of variation in application does not disprove the existence of the underlying principle.

Moreover, the diversity of moral practices is often exaggerated. As Lewis showed, the core moral principles — justice, honesty, care for the vulnerable, courage — are recognized across virtually all cultures. The differences are in details and applications, not in fundamental moral intuitions. This is exactly what we would expect if God has written His moral law on every human heart (Romans 2:14-15).

The Biblical Answer: Objective Moral Truth

The Biblical worldview affirms that moral truth is objective, universal, and grounded in the character of God. Right and wrong are not invented by human beings — they reflect the nature of a perfectly holy, just, and loving Creator. The moral law is not arbitrary (God could have made murder good) nor external to God (there is a standard above God) — it flows from who God is.

Because God's character does not change, moral truth does not change. Murder was wrong in ancient Mesopotamia, it is wrong today, and it will be wrong for all eternity — not because human cultures agree that it is wrong, but because it violates the character of the God in whose image every human being is made.

This grounding of morality in God's character provides what no secular worldview can: a fixed moral standard that is above human manipulation, that applies to all people at all times, and that gives human beings the dignity of moral accountability. Without God, morality is reduced to opinion; with God, morality is grounded in reality.