Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
William

Relativism Self-Destructs

Recommended Posts

Staff

by Greg Koukl

 

I've been following these two cases in the news recently about homosexuality and parenting. There was a young lady in Virginia whose young son was taken away and given to the grandmother because the court had ruled she was an unfit mother, partially because she is a lesbian. The other case involves Katherine Thomas whose child was given over to the custody of Kevin Thomas (no relation) who is a homosexual. She took the child and ran away. Both of these cases were discussed on Larry King Live this week, which I had an opportunity to watch. There was a lesbian who was arguing for the rights of homosexuals to be parents. I had an uncomfortable time with the show partly because there was another guest who I think was a Christian. I didn't watch enough to find out which group she represented, although she was trying to make a case against this other woman based on something akin to natural law.

 

At this point, Larry King was really taking her to task for her notion of natural law because he pointed out his understanding that this woman did not choose her homosexual orientation just as the Christian woman he was interviewing did not choose her heterosexual orientation. Therefore, how could she possibly object to this other woman's fitness as a mother? This poor Christian woman got herself a bit outmaneuvered by Mr. King as he offered this constitutional homosexuality argument, and he was a bit of a steamroller too. That's when I turned the T.V. off because my gut started to churn and I wanted to jump in on the discussion and I couldn't. So, I turned it off so I wouldn't get all bent out of shape.

 

There was something that was really important going on in this discussion that was underlying this specific issue of homosexuality. What was really at the root of the discussion was the legitimacy of universal moral rules because the Christian woman was arguing for some type of universal moral rules that would exclude lesbians as unfit mothers because of the patent immorality of their lifestyles. She was having a rough go of it with Larry King, but that was her argument. The reason that those arguments have such a difficult time right now is because relativism is the reigning moral ethic of the day. Relativism is simply that every person should be allowed to make up their own morality and live by their own set of standards of what they think is right and wrong. Larry King was championing the homosexual agenda in some form or another, and this notion of relativism is underlying his entire argument. Who is anyone, least of all the Christians, to judge someone else and to force their views on someone else? That's the discussion here in basic terms and it's something you hear in many topics of discussion. We've talked about this before, but I want to focus on a few aspects of this relativism issue that were underlying what Larry King was saying and also show how the notion itself is actually destructive to Larry King's own position and it commits suicide.

 

I was having breakfast this morning at the hotel where I stayed last night after giving an address at a crisis pregnancy center fund raiser. I got into a conversation with a young lady who was sitting next to me; both of us were dining alone. Her boyfriend was in a conference there at the hotel. Her name was Jenny and we began talking about relativism. I reflected to her, You know, if relativism is allegedly a good ethic--that people ought to allow others the liberty to judge for themselves what is morally good--then it seems to me that those who exemplify it to the greatest degree are the best kind of people. In this case if relativism is a good ethic, then those who manifest it most consistently and persistently, the person who is the most thorough-going relativist, is the person who is the most moral. That, I think, is a reasonable way of assessing ethics, by the way. This points out the utter bankruptcy of relativism as a moral ethic. If we apply that kind of rule to relativism we end up saying something rather absurd. We have a word in the English language for someone who is a thorough-going relativist, in other words, someone who is the most utterly committed to the notion that his ethic ought to be the thing that guides his life and others ought not make rules for him or her. What do we call a person who makes up all of his rules for himself? We call that kind of person a sociopath. If we encourage people to live out relativism consistently, what we produce is a sociopathic individual, a person who does whatever he likes, whenever he likes, without regard to other people's concerns and well-being. This demonstrates how bankrupt relativism really is.

 

Now King doesn't advocate moral anarchy. But my question to Larry King and anyone else who holds to this point of view is: On what basis can he hope to escape the notion of moral anarchy? And on what basis can he escape the conclusion that the best kind of person--if relativism is a good ethic--is the one who lives relativism out to its logical conclusion? The best kind of person is a sociopath? How can you escape it? Larry King's views of morality are actually hostile and inimical to his own views of justice and morality that he is promoting on his program. Here's why.

 

Relativism as a way of thinking actually ends up nullifying the concept of justice and fairness. Larry seems to be arguing for justice and fairness on behalf of a woman who has a child who is taken away, in part, because she's a lesbian. That's not fair. That's not just. But think for just a moment what one has to aver if he holds to a notion of justice and fairness. Justice and fairness are concepts that dictate that comparable treatment be given to different people based on--now watch this--the common standard of what's right. Justice and fairness dictate how peopleshould act. How they are obliged to act. How they ought to act. Why am I emphasizing all of these oughts and shoulds and obligeds? Because all of those are words that have no meaning in the context of relativism because relativism says that there are no standards that are absolute for all people such that they ought to and they should and they are obliged to act in a particular way. Our notion of justice and fairness is founded on the idea that there are concepts that apply to everyone.

 

My point is that if we are relativists and if we believe that everyone ought to make up their own morality and live by that, then we cannot in the next moment take that back and argue that people ought to be just and fair in the way they treat other people because justice and fairness are notions that are the content of someone else's particular morality. And relativism says that you cannot take that content and make it incumbent on some other person. If you do you violate relativism. So in arguing for relativism Larry King actually shoots himself in the foot when he says we ought to be just and fair and allow this young lady to live however she wants to live and not take her child away from her. This is another reason why relativism doesn't work.

 

By the way, relativism is among the most bankrupt of all ethical systems and it makes it impossible for us to even have a meaningful discussion about morality. The reason why it makes it hard to even discuss morality and why all the discussions that have a moral flavor to them on programs like this are ultimately incoherent is because you can only have a reasonable moral discussion if you are comparing one morality to another morality, and you are arguing that one is superior to another. You can say that my moral point of view is superior for these reasons, therefore rationally one ought to adopt my point of view. The point is, when we have moral discussions we are arguing based on the notion that there is something that's better than the other and here are my reasons and this is why you ought to change your mind about a moral system. If the fundamental truth of the matter is that all moral systems are equally good, that each person ought to be allowed to do what they want according to their own point of view, you have lost the foundation for having any meaningful discussion about morality.

 

If morals are entirely relative, there are no grounds for determining if any moral standard is deficient or unreasonable or unsound or if it's better or if it's barbaric or unacceptable. Those things are gone. In a relativistic world view, others' views--no matter how offensive to our intuitive sense of right or wrong-- can't be critiqued, they can't be challenged, they can't be praised, and they can't be faulted. And this is true of the opposing view that moral truth is absolute. If relativism is true then moral education becomes impossible and moral discussions become incoherent. Therefore, Larry King has no grounds on which to label as unjust anyone who "forces" their morality on him.

 

That's something for you to chew on when you deal with relativism. I hope that these are things that you're picking up when you watch shows like this.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Teens Twice as Likely to Affirm Moral Relativism, Survey Finds

      Teens are twice as likely than Boomers to strongly believe morality is relative and are less likely to believe abortion and homosexuality are morally wrong, according to a new Barna survey. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • Relativity, Moral Relativism, and the Modern Age

      Albert Mohler   This intellectual revolution began with four lectures in late 1915 presented to the Prussian Academy of Sciences. The lectures were given by Albert Einstein, and before the end of the year Einstein would publish his argument for a “General Theory of Relativity.” Those lectures launched an intellectual revolution, and Einstein’s theory of relativity is essential to our understanding of the modern age.   The 100th anniversary of a scientific theory is not necessarily a matter of great cultural importance. Einstein had developed his Special Theory of Relativity a decade earlier, but his General Theory–extended to the entire cosmos–was breathtaking in its revolutionary power. Einstein replaced the world of Newtonian physics with a new world marked by four dimensions, instead of just three. Time, added as a fourth dimension, changed everything.   Einstein summarized his own theory in these words:   “The ‘Principle of Relativity’ in its widest sense is contained in the statement: The totality of physical phenomena is of such a character that it gives no basis for the introduction of the concept of ‘absolute motion;’ or, shorter but less precise: There is no ‘absolute motion.'”   Thus, time, matter, and energy are relative, and not absolute. Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Thomas Levenson recently called Einstein’s theory “the greatest intellectual accomplishment of the twentieth century.” The Economist, marking the centennial of Einstein’s lectures, called the General Theory of Relativity “one of the highest intellectual achievements of humanity.” It is no exaggeration to claim Einstein’s theory as the very foundation of modern cosmology.   And yet, most modern people–even well educated moderns–have little idea of the actual theory or of its scientific significance. In everyday life, Newtonian physics serves very well. Cosmologists may depend on Einstein’s theory in their daily work, but few others do.   Nevertheless, the cultural impact of Einstein’s theory extends far beyond the laboratory or the science classroom. As the twentieth century unfolded, Einstein’s theory of relativity quickly became a symbol and catalyst for something very different — the development of moral relativism.   Einstein was not a moral relativist, nor did he believe that his theories had any essential moral or cultural meaning. He recoiled when his theory of relativity was blamed or credited for the birth of modern art (Cubism, in particular) or any other cultural development.   The philosopher Isaiah Berlin defended Einstein against any such charge: “The word relativity has been widely misinterpreted as relativism, the denial, or doubt about, the objectivity of truth or moral values.” He continued, “This was the opposite of what Einstein believed. He was a man of simple and absolute moral convictions, which were expressed in all he was and did.”   Fair enough. Albert Einstein was not a moral relativist and his theory of relativity has nothing to do with morality. The problem, however, is simple — Einstein’s theory of relativity entered the popular consciousness as a generalized relativism. The issue here is not to blame Albert Einstein. He is not responsible for the misuse, misapplication, and misappropriation of his theory. But, in any event, for millions of modern people relativity was understood as relativism. And that misunderstanding is one of the toxic developments of the modern age.   As Walter Isaacson, Einstein’s most important biographer, explains:   “In both his science and his moral philosophy, Einstein was driven by a quest for certainty and deterministic laws. If his theory of relativity produced ripples that unsettled the realms of morality and culture, this was not caused by what Einstein believed but by how he was popularly interpreted.”   That is exactly the issue. Einstein, Isaacson reveals, was an influence on the emergence of relativism as a major theme in modern art, philosophy, and morality, even if that was not his intention at all. In Isaacson’s words, “there was a more complex relationship between Einstein’s theories and the whole witch’s brew of ideas and emotions in the early twentieth century that bubbled up from the highly charged cauldron of modernism.”   Historian Paul Johnson gets it exactly right as he describes the cultural impact of Einstein’s theories:   “Is was as though the spinning globe had been taken off its axis and cast adrift in a universe which no longer conformed to accustomed standards of measurement. At the beginning of the 1920s the belief began to circulate, for the first time at a popular level, that there were no longer any absolutes: of time and space, of good and evil, of knowledge, above all of value. Mistakenly but perhaps inevitably, relativity became confused with relativism.”   Johnson goes further, arguing that “the public response to relativity was one of the principle formative influences on the course of twentieth-century history. It formed a knife, inadvertently wielded by its author, to help cut society adrift from its traditional moorings in the faith and morals of Judeo-Christian culture.”   By the middle of the twentieth century, moral relativism was a major influence in the cultural revolutions that reshaped entire societies. Artists, filmmakers, authors, and playwrights were joined by an army of psychotherapists, academics, liberal theologians, and academic revolutionaries — all seeking to reject absolute moral norms and absolute truth and to establish relativism as the new worldview.   They were stunningly successful.   As Allan Bloom famously observed in his 1987 bestseller, The Closing of the American Mind, “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.”   Moral relativism and the rejection of absolute truth now shape the modern post-Christian mind. Indeed, relativism is virtually taken for granted, at least as an excuse for overthrowing theistic truth claims and any restrictive morality.   And so, Einstein is variously blamed or thanked for a moral revolution he never intended or wanted. The lesson for the rest of us is clear. Not only do ideas have consequences, they often have consequences that are neither foreseen or predicted.   Or, to put it another way — as we think about the centennial of Albert Einstein’s famed lectures on the General Theory of Relativity to the Prussian Academy of Sciences back in 1915, let us remember that what happens in the lecture hall will not stay in the lecture hall.

      in Apologetics and Theology

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.