“Why moral relativism (individual or cultural) cannot be true.

How does a person know what is right or wrong? Where is the foundation of objective
foundation found? Why is society allowing so much? These questions have probably crossed
your mind, as the world around us is always putting out news of something negative happening
or a trend today that is harmful. Example being recently the social media Tide Pod challenge
that was taking lives of young people, because of their not following the warning labels. What
being seen in the culture today is that people are rejecting absolute moral values and moving to
the position of relativism. A place that is a pit of sinking sand which is always up and down, that
results in the sinking of moral values, the contradiction to what is reality, the absurdity that leads
to a lack of coherent thought.

These claims made seem strong and would be met often with a barrage of comments
stating “where do you go making these claims.” Let's rewind and ask what is being talked about.
Moral relativists spiral out of reality (individually and culturally). What is moral relativism being
“Moral relativism is a philosophy that asserts there is no global, absolute moral law that applies
to all people, for all time, and in all places.”(Philosophy, dic.) This basis is self-refuting, just by
that statement of definition there has been a claim to an absolute position. Therefore, asserting a
contradicting statement. The law of noncontradiction states “that something cannot be both true
and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context.”(Philosophy,dic.)

Often, relativist will assert that no one can know what truth is really, what is objective.
However, if one continues as was shown by Ray Comfort through his outreach evangelistic work
with atheist, and naturalist.How it is that at some level every person has a moral inscription that
they believe for instance that killing and stealing are wrong when it is applied to the individual.
What has taken place is that the individual has now ascribed that there is a universal objective
moral code, therefore refuting the stance of relativism. You see the relativist is not aware of
it,but they lock themselves into circular reasoning which in logical reasoning is considered a
fallacy. The circular reasoning that never concludes rather stays at a position and argues around
the topic never moving forward in linear logical progression.

The issue that arises is the moral relativist does not have a good answer to the two-part
question: is there anything wrong with an action and if so, why? If there is such thing as wrong
to the moral relativist this becomes a contradiction within the person. There becomes an appeal
to society or personal preferences is a base rather than providing a concrete answer. Perhaps the
better answer would be that there is an unchanging standard that one can turn too, and there is an
absolute authority that by which a moral obligation and stand is set, which can be defended. You
see without a standard there is the appeal to the emotions, or the appeal to the person as standard
all of which is an illogical position that the moral relativist becomes tied too.

In an article where the author is answering a relativist, the author shows what happens when
morals become subjective.

1. There are no immoral societies or behaviors.If each society or individual determines

their own standard, then the Nazis were correct to argue in the Nuremberg trials that they
did nothing truly wrong. So-called ‘justice’ here was merely the victors exerting power
over the vanquished. Likewise, moral relativism means I could torture children just for
kicks if I decided it was right for me and didn’t care about how society might react.

C.S Lewis articulate this point as well in his book Miracles and his book Problem
of Pain, where he shows that if there were no immoral societies or behavior, there would
be chaos, and a person would be able to do whatever they desired. The results would be
that justice would be non-existent because there would be no standard held. Justice would
all be determined by the personal appeal.

2. Moral judgments are reduced to personal preferences.

3. Moral reformers are not heroic. Those that have demeaned as moral reformers like
Martin King Jr. or the Women's Rights movement, would be people who were seeking to
 force morality onto another person. That these moral values that are being appealed to by
the reformers are all subjective and not to be accepted by each person.

4. Moral progress is impossible.

As one can see now that there is a moral reality. Within the area of moral realism,states
that there are moral objective standards. This results that there is an authority where morality is
received which within the Christian we know to be God because for a universal moral code to
exist it must be objective, set, unmovable in its establishment. This all points to one who is
outside the moral realm as to impose the moral code. This leads that there must be a moral law
giver which Christians know to be God. For a society to have morality it cannot be based on at
the individual level or the cultural level because these two places are in constant
fluctuation.What happens is that it does not allow for a set place where something can be
established.

Sources:

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/april/moral-relativism-is-dead.html.

https://carm.org/moral-relativism

http://blogs.christianpost.com/confident-christian/the-problems-with-moral-relativism-12102/

http://ap.lanexdev.com/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=920

https://creation.com/answering-moral-relativist

http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/

https://carm.org/dictionary-law-of-non-contradiction