Living Your Truth: The Trap of Moral Relativism

Have you ever found yourself deep in a spirited conversation about a moral issue and then they hit you with the “why do you think your perspective is the correct one?”, they’re essentially questioning the authority of your specific claim and eventually, questioning the possibility of any authoritative claim. In the past, I found this logic disarming. I wrestled with the fear that claiming objective truth was merely arrogance, wondering if my conviction was just a personal preference in disguise. This line of reasoning ends up suggesting that everyone’s moral compass turns inward, to whatever we deem true and right for ourselves, so there’s no objective right or wrong, only what you choose to believe in. 

The philosophical problem of moral relativism, which asserts that truth and morality are not absolute but are instead products of individual or cultural preference, is not a novel challenge. It is a recurring societal condition, one that the bible powerfully illustrates and critiques. The core of this critique lies in the contrast between a world governed by subjective human will and one anchored by an objective, divine standard.

The Book of Judges provides a stark historical example of societal relativism. The period it describes is repeatedly summarized by the ominous refrain: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes”. This phrase, found notably in Judges 17:6 and 21:25, encapsulates a time of profound moral and social disintegration in ancient Israel. The absence of a central, divinely-appointed authority (a king) led to a vacuum of objective law, resulting in a society where personal preference became the sole measure of right and wrong. The narrative serves as a powerful cautionary tale about the inevitable chaos that ensues when subjective human judgment replaces a transcendent moral law.

The theological response to this chaos is the recognition of God as the Ground of all Truths and the Arbiter of Morality. In this framework, morality is not a human construct but an objective reality rooted in the immutable nature of a transcendent being. This divine standard provides the necessary external reference point, the absolute truth, against which all human actions and beliefs must be measured. Without this foundation, all claims to truth collapse into mere opinion, and morality becomes a fluid, self-serving concept.

This ancient problem mirrors our current intellectual climate. Post-modernism, in particular, is characterized by a deep skepticism toward grand narratives and objective truth, often reducing all claims to power dynamics or social constructs. When this skepticism is applied to morality, it results in a form of neo-relativism where moral authority is decentralized and subjective. And by rejecting the concept of an objective, external moral law, these movements risk leading society back to a state of moral flux. 

The historical lesson of the Book of Judges is clear: a society where every individual is their own moral authority is a society perpetually on the brink of collapse. True societal order cannot rest on the shifting sands of human consensus, we must return to the understanding that truth is an objective reflection of an eternal reality. There’s no enduring order without an absolute standard, and there’s no absolute standard without God as the immutable ground of all truth.