What Is Moral Relativism?
Moral relativism is the belief that no objective or universal moral values exist. Instead of viewing morals as grounded in absolute truth, relativism claims that what is right or wrong depends entirely on the individual or the culture. This theory has two major forms: extreme relativism, which asserts that moral values are individual and subjective, and cultural relativism, which teaches that moral values depend on the standards of one’s society. Despite its popularity, moral relativism leads to logical contradictions and cannot consistently account for the universal moral judgments most people agree on. In contrast, biblical teaching affirms that moral truth is real, objective, and grounded in the nature of God, with Jesus identified as “the way, the truth, and the life.” Scripture therefore provides the final standard for moral guidance “for all men, in all places, at all times.”
1. What Moral Relativism Teaches About Morals and Truth
At its foundation, moral relativism teaches that:
no universal moral law exists
no action is objectively right or wrong
all moral judgments depend on perspective
truth varies from person to person or culture to culture
In extreme relativism, each individual becomes the final authority over moral judgment. In cultural relativism, a society’s norms determine morality. Both forms reject the concept of absolute moral truth.
This approach to morals has become widespread, especially among younger generations. A 2011 national survey showed that nearly half of emerging American adults agreed with the statement, “morals are relative; there are no definite rights and wrongs for everybody.” This attitude reflects a culture increasingly shaped by individual autonomy and resistance to universal claims.
Yet even within relativistic societies, people still appeal to ideas of fairness, justice, human dignity, and basic human rights—concepts that cannot be sustained if moral relativism is true. The tension reveals that relativism is more emotionally appealing than logically coherent.
2. Why Moral Relativism Contains Logical Contradictions
Although moral relativism claims that objective morals do not exist, relativists themselves often deny the implications of their own worldview. Several contradictions emerge when moral relativism is applied consistently.
People still make universal moral judgments
Even relativists deny that actions such as murder, abuse, or oppression can be justified simply because someone “has their own standards.” If morals were purely personal, no one could claim that these acts are wrong.
Tolerance becomes an absolute value
Many relativists argue that we should “tolerate all beliefs,” but this argument fails because:
demanding tolerance is itself a moral claim
intolerance cannot be tolerated without abandoning the principle
the moment someone insists on tolerance, they appeal to a universal moral rule
This creates an internal contradiction: relativism condemns judging others, yet it judges those who do not accept relativism.
Relativism cancels ethical dialogue
If all moral claims are subjective, no moral disagreement can be meaningful. One person’s view is neither better nor worse than another’s. Yet relativists frequently argue for moral positions such as human rights, social justice, or fairness—positions that require moral absolutes.
Moral relativism undermines itself
To claim, “All morals are relative” is to assert a universal moral truth. But if it is universal, then at least one absolute truth exists, which defeats relativism.
These contradictions reveal that moral relativism collapses upon examination. It cannot explain moral instincts, moral outrage, or the universal moral language that shapes human society.
3. How Moral Relativism Shapes Culture and Behavior
The influence of moral relativism extends far beyond philosophical theory. Historically, societies become more morally unstable when they deny objective moral truth. Without a universal standard, moral boundaries shift based on preference, emotion, or social pressure.
Some theologians and ethicists have argued that:
relativism “opens the door” to the social acceptance of deviant behavior
communities struggle to define right and wrong without a stable moral foundation
society lacks a basis for condemning injustice
moral education becomes confused and inconsistent
individuals are encouraged to see themselves as self-defined moral authorities
When morals become fluid and subjective, the result is not moral freedom but moral chaos. Societies need objective standards to protect the vulnerable, restrain evil, and promote the common good. Moral relativism undermines each of these.
4. How the Christian View Differs from Moral Relativism
In contrast to moral relativism, the Christian view affirms that absolute moral truth exists. According to Scripture:
God’s character defines right and wrong
moral truth flows from God’s nature
God’s commands apply universally
Jesus is the embodiment of truth
the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment
Christian ethics rests on the conviction that God reveals moral truth through His Word. This truth does not change with time, culture, or personal preference. Biblical commands apply to every person in every place because they arise from the unchanging character of God.
Christian teaching therefore asserts:
morality is objective
moral judgments can be true or false
all people are accountable to God
moral commands are given for human flourishing
truth is not invented but revealed
Jesus’ declaration that he is “the way, the truth, and the life” functions as a direct challenge to moral relativism. If Jesus is truth, truth cannot be relative.
5. Why Moral Relativism Cannot Replace Biblical Morality
Ultimately, moral relativism fails both logically and practically. It cannot sustain meaningful ethics, cannot justify human rights, cannot ground justice, and cannot explain why actions such as oppression or cruelty are wrong. Biblical morality, by contrast, provides:
a foundation for evaluating right and wrong
a consistent way to condemn injustice
a basis for human dignity
a framework for accountability
a motivation for love and compassion
an anchor for moral stability
Scripture does not present morality as oppressive but as the path to life, peace, and righteousness. The commands of God are not arbitrary; they reflect His goodness and wisdom. While relativism leads to confusion, biblical truth leads to clarity.
Conclusion
Moral relativism teaches that moral truth is subjective and variable, but the theory contains deep contradictions. It cannot support universal moral claims, collapses under its own logic, and destabilizes the ethical foundations of society. In contrast, the Christian view affirms that objective moral truth exists and is grounded in the nature of God. Jesus Christ embodies that truth, and Scripture provides moral guidance “for all men, in all places, at all times.” Biblical morality does not shift with opinion but anchors human life in the unchanging truth of God.
Bible Verses Related to Moral Truth (ESV)
John 14:6 “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life.’”
Psalm 119:160 “The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.”
Isaiah 5:20 “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”
Romans 2:15 “They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts.”
Micah 6:8 “He has told you, O man, what is good.”
John 17:17 “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”
Proverbs 14:12 “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”
Ephesians 4:14–15 “So that we may no longer be children… carried about by every wind of doctrine… rather, speaking the truth in love.”
James 1:22 “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only.”
2 Timothy 4:3–4 “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching… they will turn away from listening to the truth.”
