Dealing with Moral Relativism
In demonstrating that human beings are sinners, we typically use the following approach:
1. God has given us a moral law, which is absolute and universal.
2. We have violated that moral law.
3. We are therefore sinners.
This is probably a proper understanding of sin, but in an apologetics setting, it often stalls out, because many people will challenge the notion of an absolute and universal moral law. While it is possible to establish that such a moral law exists, it takes some time, energy, and ingenuity, especially if your prospect is willing to be purposefully difficult.
However, there is a easier way to show your prospect that he is a sinner, which bypasses the whole "absolute and universal" part of the argument. It relies on a fatal flaw in moral relativism, and the fact that nobody can escape completely from their God-given conscience. The outline for this method is as follows:
1. Grant that the prospect has his own, personal moral law, which is not universal or absolute. Ask him what his personal moral law says.
2. Ask the prospect if he has kept this moral law. Invariably, the prospect will have had violated his personal moral law, by his own admission.
3. Therefore, even if we were to judge him according to his own laws, he is a sinner.
4. If we now take into account the fact that his moral law is different from God's moral law, his sinfulness becomes even more apparent.
The only reasonable escape from this that I can see is the path of moral nihilism. In this case, they would deny 1, and claim that there is no moral laws of any kind. Other methods of escape are possible, but they are quite ridiculous and probably not worth worrying about as long as your prospect is taking the conversation seriously. They include denying 2 ("I've never violated my own moral law. I'm perfect. I never felt guilty before in my life."), a personally nihilistic view on 1 ("Yes, everyone has their own personal moral laws. My moral law happens to say that everything I do is right."), and denying 4 ("I've violated my own moral laws, but by a cosmic accident, I've violated them in such ways that do not violate God's laws"). Fortunately, moral nihilism is almost as ridiculous, and is fairly easy to beat down, but the easiest way to disprove moral nihilism (namely, to beat down the person holding the view) is not an acceptable course of action. So another way has to be devised. But to prevent having to deal with this in the first place, it is advisable to cut off this path of retreat at the beginning of the debate.
So on the whole, the conversation may look like this:
C (Christian): God gave us a universal, absolute moral law, which we violated.
N (nonchristian): There is no such thing as an absolute universal moral law. What's right for you is not right for me, and what's right for me is not right for you. You can't impose your morals on me, and I won't impose mine on you.
C: So you have your own set of personal moral laws that only applies to you?
N: Of course.
C: So, for example, giving money to the church would be right for me, but wrong for you?
N: Yes.
C: But since you believe that your morals are relative, doesn't that mean your morals are somehow inferior to my absolute morals?
N: Of course not. For example, I believe murder is wrong, just as sincerely as you do.
C: Well, can you tell me some of your own, personal morals?
N: I think I shouldn't kill people, or steal. I should be nice to people and try not to hurt them, and help them when I can.
C: And have you ever failed to do some of those things?
N: Who hasn't? Nobody's perfect.
C: So then, it seems that you can't even keep your own moral laws. By your own admission, even if we use your own standards, you are guilty. And this is even before we say anything about God's laws! Tell me, if you're guilty by your own standards, how do you think you'll do by God's standards?
This whole method can be summarized nicely by looking at it from a slightly different perspective, as shown below:
There is at least one undeniably universal and absolute moral law, which is this: If you think something is right, you should do it, and if you think something is wrong, you shouldn't do it. This moral law is agreed on by everyone. Also, everyone agrees that there are no exceptions to this law. These two facts makes this law universal and absolute, even in the (mistaken) human sense of the words 'universal' and 'absolute'. But even though this law is undeniably universal and absolute, everyone is found guilty of breaking this very law. Thus everyone is a sinner.
|
