Many of you have given expression to a worldview called "moral relativism". 

I found this essay that might be of interest to you as you evaluate your convictions that there is no belief in fixed values for all people of all time.  I found the following essay at:

http://radicalacademy.com/ethicsmyth.htm

The purpose of this brief essay is to show that moral (or ethical) relativism is a philosophical myth that is accepted by no one who has critically examined its tenets and that those who claim to be moral relativists are really not. We are dealing here with two aspects of a specific condition:

• First, with a "belief" that states there are no fixed values, there are only fluctuating human valuations, or that ethical truths are relative, that is, the rightness of an action depends on or consists in the attitude taken towards it by some individual or group, and hence may vary from individual to individual or from group to group.
• Second, with "actions" based on this belief which clearly show that the agent is, more or less, acting or behaving in a way that is consistent with the belief that moral relativism is, in fact, the true and only philosophical position.

As is usually the case in this type of reflective situation, the belief comes first, the action follows, but the action taken tells us something about the commitment to the belief undergirding the action taken.

It is easy in our contemporary society to find statements which apparently show a commitment to moral relativism. Consider just a sampling:

• What's true for you may not be true for me.
• Nothing is really right or wrong, but thinking makes it so.
• Ethical judgments are just a matter of personal opinion.
• Anything goes.
• One man's meat is another man's poison (in regard, of course, to morals).
• We should not judge another's personal morality.
• No society is better or worse than another (in regard to social ethics).

The above statements, and ones similar to them, are now bandied about in ordinary conversation as if they were truths about which no one should disagree. Moreover, those who claim to be moral or ethical relativists and are bold enough to declare it would simply say: "All morals are relative and that's the end of it," or some such "philosophical" assertion.

Opinion surveys recently taken in America have shown the pervasiveness of the position promoted by moral relativism. For instance, in one survey where adults were asked if they agreed with the statement "there are no absolute standards for morals and ethics," seventy-one percent said that they agreed with it. Other surveys have shown even higher numbers who think that morality and ethics is a matter of personal opinion and that there are no universal standards by which one can determine the rightness or wrongness of a human act.

Now, I never question what a person tells me regarding his or her personal beliefs, unless I have a valid reason to think otherwise. If someone tells me that truth is a relative matter, then I accept that that is what that person believes. I then consider that person's actions to see if they are consistent with the beliefs stated. And that is where the "rubber meets the road," so to speak. I find that those who claim "all truth is relative" may spout that belief, but they never act as if its true. Similarly, I find that those who say they believe in moral relativism never act as if they really do. In fact, I find them to be moral absolutists, not moral relativists. Belief is one thing; actions are another. And it is in the realm of action that moral relativism takes the fatal "hit."

The old adage "actions speak louder than words" has a special significance here. If the "words" (beliefs) are really committed to by the moral relativist, then his or her "actions" should be consistent with those words or beliefs. And it is precisely here that moral or ethical relativism becomes a "myth." While many may claim to be moral relativists, their actions show they are not. In fact, their behavior shows them to be moral absolutists of a type, the very opposite of what they claim to be. And it is this point that I want to address in the remainder of this essay.

The self-proclaimed moral relativist does not and cannot maintain his or her commitment to the "philosophy" of moral relativism. In fact, the record clearly shows that these "moral relativists" are not relativists at all, but moral absolutists. This assertion is based on their behavior, not on their alleged support of a philosophical position. To wit:

• Modern "liberal" political groups who promote "political correctness." These groups want to suppress what they consider to be offensive language and views. Most of these people claim to be moral relativists, yet they promote a doctrine that includes an "absolutist" program, that is, "statements that are politically incorrect must be eliminated or even made illegal." No relativism here.
• Groups promoting "Multiculturalism." All the beliefs and practices of non-Western cultures must be considered as "good" regardless of the belief and practice, but Western civilization and the "white European" are evil and to be eliminated as soon as possible. No relativism here.
• Pro-abortion groups. Claiming that morality is a matter of personal opinion, these groups are now attempting to legally quash any opposition to their position. They want "special protection" and do not want to confront any philosophical opposition. No relativism here.

The above are simply examples of "absolutist" behavior parading as moral relativism. But there is more. One of the most vocal and active groups to promote moral relativism in America is the so-called "Feminist Movement." Yet, even here, we find, not moral relativism as claimed, but moral absolutism. To wit:

• The "Feminist Movement" says that the Taliban government in Afghanistan was "wrong" in its treatment of women. But, to be consistent, the feminists should say, it is after all just a "cultural" thing and we have no business judging the rightness or wrongness of Taliban culture.
• The "Feminist Movement" labels child-adult sexual activity as "wrong," but, to remain consistent, it should say, it's merely a "personal" opinion. No one should be punished for engaging in such behavior.
• The "Feminist Movement" should say, to be consistent, "rape" is really in the eye of the beholder. What is rape to one person is making love to another. It's a matter of one's point of view.

Now, the "Feminist Movement" is not going to take the moral relativist position; they will take the position of the moral absolutist, the very position they condemn in those who are not in agreement with their particular views. They will say:

• The treatment of women by the Taliban is wrong and should be changed.
• Child-adult sexual activity is wrong and should be criminally punished.
• Rape is wrong, regardless of the perpetrator's opinion, and should be criminally punished.

None of the above judgments regarding a human act can be judged as right or wrong without appealing to some standard used as a criterion for judging the behavior. This standard, by its very nature, is "absolutist." Moral relativism cannot appeal to a standard, simply because "relativism" itself means there are no standards.

I could continue with many other examples of the "moral absolutist" masquerading as a "moral relativist." But brevity forbids it. And, besides, I want to make another important point. The pseudo-moral relativist (because that's what they really are!) do not really want to convince you that his or her philosophical position is correct or true by engaging in an intellectual discourse. Rather, in American society, the pseudo-moral relativist wants to appeal to the legislative bodies (Congress, et al) or the judiciary bodies (the Supreme Court, etc.) to have their "beliefs" encased in law. This means that what is "legal" is the same as what is "moral," and nothing else. And this is the final nail in the coffin of the moral relativist.

We are not talking about morality at all! We are talking about positive law. Morality or ethics has nothing to do with the situation. Positive law is now all that matters. Making some "human act" legal is to be distinguished from the "morality" of any human act. All we need to do, according to this philosophical position, is declare something to be "legal" and it is, ipso facto, "moral." This, by the way, is, in my opinion, the current state of affairs in American society today.

Okay, let us accept that for the sake of the current argument: What is "legal" is equivalent to what is "moral," as a defining example of moral relativism. The so-called moral relativist is dead in the water. Because if "legality" is to define "morality" then any outrage against such phenomena as the Nazi "Holocaust" or the attack on America by terrorists on September 11, 2001 or the "circumcision" of little girls in many black-African countries or the "abuse" of women in Taliban Afghanistan or the practice of owning black slaves in 19th-century America is misplaced and unfair. These are or were "legal." Therefore, according to the logic of this type of moral relativists, all these practices are or were "moral."

No moral relativist I am familiar with will accept the above. They will insist these are "evil" acts. But by what standards, or on what grounds, or by what criteria, if judging human acts is relative matter and there are no absolute standards that can be used to make a judgment? Either all moral principles are relative or there is at least one moral principle which is absolute, or, in the case of the logical positivists and some others, morality is simply a semantic game which has no real content (which is not at issue here since no one really believes that anyway, including the logical positivists who promoted it).

Now, let's get real. If moral relativists were really sincere in their beliefs, they could not condemn the following practices and would have to say...

• Cannibalism is permitted if you think it is morally correct.
• Raping two-year olds is acceptable if that is part of your cultural tradition.
• Brutalizing your wife is understandable if that is part of your ethical system.
• Castrating young boys is permitted for the sake of your cultural heritage.
• Torture is a morally accepted part of your criminal justice system.
• Human sacrifice is allowed as part of your religious system.
• Certain groups defined as unwanted by your society can be destroyed.
• There is no such thing as a war crime; it's in the eye of the beholder.
• Adolf Hitler should not be judged as morally reprehensible since he was acting lawfully.
• Josef Stalin was not acting immorally when he killed millions of innocent people.
• The suicide bombers of September 11, 2001 were acting properly in their own interests.
• Anything goes. Anything goes. Anything goes. We cannot judge.

There is no way the declared moral relativist can get around this issue. If there is not at least ONE absolute, objective standard or principle or proposition of moral philosophy or ethics, one that can be used to further develop a system of objectively-based moral philosophy, then "anything goes."

Finally, I get back to the initial position I was trying to argue. Moral or ethical relativism is a "myth." That is, no one really believes in moral relativism, in spite of what one might say. All one has to do is look at the "actions" of the moral relativist instead of concentrating on the beliefs espoused. Self-proclaimed moral relativists appear to be guilty of hypocrisy, saying one thing but practicing the opposite. And, finally, moral relativism is just another example of "intellectual insanity," the attempt to remake and reshape reality into what one wants it to be, rather than accepting reality as it is and dealing with it rationally.

There has to be at least ONE rational, objective standard by which human beings can judge the rightness, the correctness, or the appropriateness of human actions. There may be more, but there has to be at least one. It is the discovery of this rational, objective standard that is the object of what we call moral philosophy or ethics.

Links to sites that discuss "moral relativism"

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/abortion/socsays.htm

http://www.str.org/free/reflections/apologetics/relativism/notolera.htm

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/relativism/relsocio.htm

The Convictions or Lack of Convictions Expressed by Students at Session 5

1. Where does everything come from?  Where does matter come?
   1. Existence is existence and the word universe encompasses everything that exists and it always was - it never had beginning and always will exist
   2. Everything comes from reality
   3. ?
   4. Everything in infinity travels in a circle and the more laps you make on the circle the thinner it gets - its the big bang theory
   5. I don't know but it exists and it always had to exist - it came from somewhere I just don't where
   6. I have no idea - agnostic - no conviction about this
   7. I don't know -
   8. Molecules were always there - always been there regardless of the form it takes on
   9. I don't know
   10. Everything comes from everything and matter comes from everything
   11. Everything always existed because there can never just be nothing - for that implies there was something to compare it to - I don't pretend to know - don't know who created everything
   12. It was created by someone or something else
   13. Christian worldview - created everything out of nothing
   14. Darwinism - evolved - intelligence evolved
2. Is the world good or bad and how can we define good or bad?
   1. I think it is good and good and bad is what people have become accustomed and how they were taught as children
   2. Good - because everything humans, plants animals is provided by nature
   3. World is both good and bad - without good there is no bad and without bad there is no good
   4. World can't be categorized in terms of good and bad - the natural world strives for balance - definition of good or bad is however we were socialized into believing
   5. Balance of both good and bad - good and evil - ying and yang
   6. Inherently neither good nor bad - good and bad are subjective with good being beneficial and bad being harmful
   7. The world is both good and bad both at the same time it is neither
   8. The world is a combination of both good and bad - each individual defines good and bad in their own ways
   9. It is both and neither - I guess it is subjective because good is usually stated as a reward
   10. The world is good and it is those that inhabit it that make it bad
   11. The world is bad because of human beings
   12. The universe is neutral - its up to us to make it - universe will exist long after us - very subjective whether something is good or bad
3. What does it mean to be human?
   1. To think and feel on the level and confines in which human exists - death is the state when you exist only in the memories of others - we are one being - can't separate soul from body - a cohesive entity
   2. To be human is to think and feel - after people die they will not be able to think and feel and act - this means people are not alive
   3. There is an immaterial soul and there is some kind of reincarnation of that soul but maybe not reincarnation - the soul continues some how
   4. Humans are just our physical state on earth - out soul continues on after death but may take on another physical form in the afterlife
   5. To be human means to live, think experience and learn - I believe in the soul but as to what happens after you die I have no idea
   6. We are humans and that is human - making mistakes is characteristic of being human and then artificial intelligence can't be human because it can't make mistakes
   7. Couldn't define - not sure what happens when you die - believe you have a soul - believe consciousness continues after death but not sure it is individual consciousness
   8. Behind intellect and biological being I am not sure what it entails and death I don't know what to say on that - drew a blank on that
   9. We have an immaterial soul in the sense it is intangible and no our individual consciousness does not continue after death
   10. Human uses resources and the mind and when you die you have a transition into a different reality and I believe in souls but the world is becoming more souless - hard to say your exact consciousness continues
   11. We have an immaterial soul and our consciousness continues on after death - to a different level of consciousness but it exists on a different level - a different overtone like the musical scale has infinite notes - whether you can hear it or not its there - after we die we can choose where we go - we don't have a form we are like a ball of energy
   12. To be human is thoughts feelings and realization of the world around you - and when you die there is a loss of consciousness and for the rest - doesn't know
4. How should people live and why do you say so?
   1. However they are happy within the reason it doesn't hurt other and just from my own experiences
   2. Golden rule - treat others how you want to be treated - take care of the less fortunate - people should live to be happy but not why we are here - our happiness has the bounds of other people - if our neighbor isn't our job is to help neighbor to be happy - just sounds like a good idea
   3. I can't say how everyone to see - everyone should just let it flow naturally - because I believe in karma - karma is cause and effect coming back to you
   4. Each person should live in a way that creates balance in that person because nature strives for balance
   5. Golden rule - live from an outside perspective - see yourself from afar - judge how you think and act from an outside perspective - because the easiest way to judge self is not having selfish tendencies get in the way
   6. Live by moral and natural law - the Tao - people should do the right thing because I believe there is natural law
   7. happy why? you should want to do everything that makes yourself feel happy
   8. Everybody should live different from each other but at the same time they should live in a way that is respectful and beneficial to everyone around them
   9. People should be selfish and do for themselves and trust their instincts and their reactions why? through experience and my religion
   10. People should live to get the most out of life and also work to better the whole - why? I don't know - just how I was raised I guess
   11. Everybody should live having emotion and realizing that I am alive - why? People will destroy themselves or each other without emotion if they don't have emotion
   12. People should live according to their cultural upbringing and their own societal laws? why? Because people are happier when they are living what they are use to?
   13. People should live in a rationally selfish manner and pursue the things that will make them happy but not at the expense of others? Why - we are all individuals and we should live as such.
5. Should all live by the same standards?  Why yes why no?
   1. We all need set the standards by which we live by ourselves but we need to respect the standards of others and respect the law of nature I guess
   2. No - different cultures require different standards - for example India sacred cows but we eat them - people adapt best to their own cultural background
   3. Yes - if all people have all the same standards - the world will stay in peace
   4. Yes - for the most part we do live by the same standards not sure why
   5. No - that's what makes people strive fighting for or against something - because the same standards would not constitute a worldview thought or feeling
   6. No - because if you get rid of the diversity of the world it would be impossible to agree upon one standard for everybody
   7. No - because then we would not be individuals
   8. Yes - because to say that some people will live by different standards is to assume that people would be on different levels and because the general principle can't be formed to distinguish who is hire and who is lower and everyone must be held to the same standard
   9. No - because you would not be able to see individuality from person to person and different persons have different needs to be compensated for
   10. No - because individualistic standards bring change to the world
   11. No - everything is changing
   12. No - Hitler wanted everyone to live by the same standards and world peace doesn't come from conformity
   13. No - different people require different situations and standards
6. What should we do with our failures to live by these standards?
   1. Learn from them so the same thing doesn't happen again
   2. I think karma has its place - I once lost 85 cents - when I went back - to get it I told them $1.35 - I put in .85 got what I needed then I put the extra 50 in and the machine kept the 50 cents - the way things happen in the universe
   3. Approach it differently and have better insight?
   4. Learn
   5. We are ultimately flawed to begin with - no one is perfect - try to balance it out
   6. Try harder - defer to the law
   7. What standards?
   8. Blank
   9. Learn from mistakes
   10. Learn from our failures and strive to improve
   11. don't know
   12. learn from the failures - these failures are what make us stronger and helps us build character
   13. learn from them but don't over analyze because that way leads to madness
7. What is a reliable guide to answering these questions?
   1. You just have to wing it with your instincts
   2. Religious background laws and the government family and social structures
   3. according to my values - culture
   4. my ....
   5. experience and religion
   6. your own beliefs and your background
   7. all subjective there is no right or wrong guide
   8. there is no universally accepted guide believe in philosophical reasoning and Kant
   9. person to person - your personality and how you grew up
   10. there is no set guide
   11. understanding your environment and your body and having awareness
   12. your gut because your religion and beliefs and ideals don't always keep you warm at night - going with what feels right
   13. individual moral standards
   14. Bible
   15. Koran
   16. Torah
   17. Other texts of religions
8. What place does God have in it all?  Were we designed?  Is our intelligent the result of an intelligent designer and if so does this designer want us to try to design intelligent machines and and do we have the power to do it?
   1. If there is a god he would be the ruler over all - we have had to be designed by something - I think our intelligence is the result of an intelligent designer - I don't know if the designer wants us to design machines but we will have power to do it
   2. I don't think we should try to design intelligent machines - the machines should not be individuals - we probably have the power to do it with infinite time but I don't think that whoever is in charge of everything will allow it to happen
   3. god is a name for what is not known - and we possibly could have been designed and I don't know if there was an intelligent designer and I don't think the designer is wanting us to do it - in the sense of wanting
   4. our intelligence is the result of an intelligent designer I don't know if he wants us to do but I believe we have the power to do it
   5. I wasn't sure
   6. I don't think we should try and I hope we don't have the power
   7. don't know
   8. we were designed by an intelligent designer and so was our intelligent as to whether we should I don't know but think we will have power to do so
   9. no place - maybe - no - no - maybe
   10. yes we were designed and yes intelligence is the result - we were given the intelligence and were given the decision whether to take it to that level
   11. no idea
   12. yes we were designed and intelligence is result of it - yes because he gave us capacity to do it and eventually we will have power to do it
   13. if there is a god he does not play an active role in it and I don't think we were designed we are the result of a natural process and I don't know if we have the power to create intelligent machines