Many have written on the multiplicity of problems with this view,1 but perhaps the most glaring one is that the view self-destructs, as Professor John Lennox explains:
"...relativists tend to argue that since, according to them, there are no moral absolutes, no objective rights and wrongs, no one ought to try to impose his moral views on other people. But in arguing like that, they refute their own theory. The word ought implies a moral duty. They are saying, in effect, that because there are no universal, objective principles, there is a universal moral principle binding on all objectivists, and everyone else - namely, that no one ought to impose his moral views on other people. In so saying, relativism refutes its own basic principle."2
Relativism presents itself as humble and tolerant, yet it cannot even state its own case without appealing to an objective moral obligation. In trying to deny objective moral truths, it inevitably assumes it. If a view defeats itself when you try to explain it, that alone is reason enough to reject it.
Courage and Godspeed,
Relativism presents itself as humble and tolerant, yet it cannot even state its own case without appealing to an objective moral obligation. In trying to deny objective moral truths, it inevitably assumes it. If a view defeats itself when you try to explain it, that alone is reason enough to reject it.
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Footnotes:
1. I recommend this book by Greg Koukl and Francis Beckwith for a thorough treatment.
2. John C. Lennos, 2084 and the AI Revolution, p. 242.
Related Posts
3 Reasons Relativism is Untenable
Philosopher Stephen T. Davis on the Claim, "Christianity is true for you but not for me."
Philosopher Stephen T. Davis on Tolerance
2. John C. Lennos, 2084 and the AI Revolution, p. 242.
Related Posts
3 Reasons Relativism is Untenable
Philosopher Stephen T. Davis on the Claim, "Christianity is true for you but not for me."
Philosopher Stephen T. Davis on Tolerance
Comments