Moral Relativism: Is it the Absolute Truth?
By: Laura Rivera

Before I begin with my argument on moral relativism, I would like to address the conscience 
of the reader, by telling them a short yet true story, which has been played out several times, 
in many different ways around the continent of Africa:

A young man had been living with his girl friend for quite a while, in a small, lower class shack
 in one of the more needy areas of Africa. The relatively young girl, had previously been in a
 premarital relationship with another man, and had with him an 8 month old girl, whom the young 
man had agreed to have in his care. The baby was very small and malnourished, to the extent that
 you needed to press her lightly between two clenched arms to be able to support her delicate body
. One day, an awful inhumanity occurred. There is a myth in Africa that claims that if a man who 
has AIDS, has sexual relations with a virgin, his sickness will be passed on to her, and he will be
 healed. In the young man’s desperate attempt to rid himself of the virus, if indeed he had it, he 
took the defenseless body of the 8 month old baby and raped it violently. When the baby was found, 
screaming in pain, her little womb had been brutally ripped apart by the man. Yes, she had survived. 
The girl was taken to the hospital, were they had to remove her womb. Luckily, she did not have
 HIV. The young man had not been infected at all. 

Africa has been struck by a wave of ignorance, disease, and violence. Had we a healthy conscience, 
we would look upon this monstrosity and quiver at the fact that there are parts of the world where
 people perish because of their lack of knowledge. Now keep this young man’s thoughts in mind, 
his reasons, his actions, his circumstance, think of the life spoiled as you read this essay; and 
open your minds and ears to another argument, hoping to defeat the ordinary.

First of all, a definition of moral relativism should be at hand.  

Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is 
relative to the individual.  This means that all moral positions, all religious systems, all art forms, 
all political movements, etc., are truths that are relative to the individual. 

According to moral relativism, all religion, art, morality, and politics are subject to the individual, 
the culture, or the society. 

Now this indeed is a highly attractive principle to a society in which morality is quickly decaying. 
Now, if you are a moral relativist, you will probably scoff at the idea that people should be judged 
by a standard moral code. You probably laugh at people’s faint attempts to relocate antiquated ethics
 into a highly intellectual culture. Still, pause for a moment and realize; do you believe my strife to 
do right is wrong? Do you believe that my ideal that there are moral absolutes is ludicrous in its
 close minded ways, because my ideal is indeed, the argumentative opposite of yourself, making it 
quite a threat to your line of thinking? Then shame on you, moral relativist, for you have admitted
 that my reality is false, when according to your standards, it should be right. For what is right anyway? 
Indeed, by saying there are no absolute truths; you are making an absolute statement! 
Which brings me to this philosophy’s first foul: It is self refuting. Two wrongs do not make a right. 

Moral relativism has made a call to arms. It has been attempting in our society to make what once 
was wrong, a right; make what once was revered, a mockery; and all with the excuse that our
 intellectual freedoms have gone to such an extent that it is not RIGHT to impose one person’s 
beliefs upon others, yet again, another self refuting statement. The origin of relativism itself was to 
refute a belief that there are moral absolutes! Still, these people open their eyes to see, yet they are
 blind. The feel they grasp, but they fail to hold their arguments together. As the blind lead the blind, 
so they both fall in the ditch. 

Moral relativism has been an age long response to organized religion and Christianity, whose stems
 take us to Karl Marx, one of the great propellers of this philosophy. Based on the idea that there is
 no god or creation, moral relativists have communed with evolution over the years, in their attempt
 to provide an intelligent argument on their theory. If there is no creation and human beings are merely
 a product of organized proteins and years of evolution, then there is no overbearing reason to keep 
a standard of morality. For instance, in the 10 Commandments, it says that people should not commit 
adultery. Still, in this well advanced age, students and married couples are loosing such a virtue. 
They ask themselves, why should I abstain myself? In this modern age, pregnancy can be avoided, 
STD’s can be treated. The only consequence would be the parent’s disapproval, which is now 
dissolving into a pool of liberal babble. There is no ultimate judge to judge me, they proclaim. 
There is no ultimate consequence, other than the one you can deal with yourselves. The minds of 
teens are praying: indulge, “do as thou wilt”*, there is no guilt, shame, or standard to follow. As a 
matter of fact, there is pride in doing shame, honor in doing the dishonorable, and praise in doing
 the undignified. 

Look around you try to imagine the hidden lives of your peers. Is there lying, is there fornication, 
is there hate, are there evil manners of thinking, drunkenness, foolish talk, laziness? Then ask 
yourselves, do you care? No. I can hear the silence roaring in your hearts. Can you see how cold 
you have grown, how hard your hearts feel now. We have all eventually been blinded by the 
sickness which lingers in this humanity. We have all sacrificed conscience for pleasure, health
 for disease, and honor for dishonor; all for the indulgence of the self. 

As western society is growing in its apathy, crimes increase, education decreases, population 
increases, yet jobs decrease. There is an aching need for the morality that has been lost with 
the passing of the century. It exists to ensure the well being of society and the individual. There
 is a need, there is no denying that. Still, perhaps you ask yourself, what specific morals are 
absolute and who will choose them? First of all, let us address the issue on absolute truth. 


*”Do as thou wilt” is the main slogan of the Satanic Church. 

In contrast to moral relativism, there is absolute truth. An absolute truth is a truth that is not 
relative, but is constant despite the circumstance, person, and culture. Some people will argue 
that there cannot be an absolute truth, because different cultures practice different things.
 I simply have two arguments on this. First of all, by the laws of logic, you can not presume that 
because something is the way it is, that is the way it should be. Mainly, because the question 
is weather it should be that way or not. You are answering the problem, just by stating the 
problem at hand. For example, if there were a sudden outbreak of child molestation in Puerto Rico,
 the moral relativist could say: Well, that’s the way it has turned out, that is the way it should 
be. It is part of the people’s culture now, and I have no problem with it. Still, our conscience 
begs to differ. 

The second argument to this is the following: Most moral relativist will tell you that Martin 
Luther King was an honorable man, because of his devotion to the cause of rights for black
 people. Still, according to moral relativism, Martin Luther King should be considered
 infamous, because he was going against a cultural movement that had been considered
 normal at the time.

Absolute truth is needed in morality. Without this standard, there could never be true justice
 for people and nations, only the illusion of justice. For instance, if a man is sentenced to 
death for raping and torturing his 5 year old daughter, there is a chance that he might feel 
that an injustice was committed to him. Would this immediately revoke the sentence, just 
because he did not feel as if he was treated justly? NO. A good and fair judge would remain
 in his sentence. Society is propelled by an absolute truth. Relative Morality would create
 anarchy, going against the will of nature and humanity. 

There should be a universal morality, regarding absolute truth. Many will argue that it is
 unfair to mingle with other people’s culture and society. Still, these same moral relativist 
will tell me that Hitler, in their personal opinion, did wrong in murdering so many millions
 of Jewish people. If moral relativism had made some sense, then they would disagree
 with the decision of the nations to unite against Germany to stop his attempt at genocide.
 It would have been a mistake for nations to unite under the belief that fascism was 
wrong to destroy the Nazi regimen. Still, this action made way for the creation of the
 United Nations and a time of peace with the continents. History itself disproves moral 
relativism; statistics on society’s downfall disprove moral relativism, even common sense 
disproves moral relativism. Still, there are so many people around the world who continue 
with their eyes veiled. Their love for lust has made them blind. 

And very quickly, it makes no sense that truth should be based on the number of 
population or the number of devotees to a particular moral subject. Many moral relativist 
or even absolutists will say: Well, how can so many people be wrong? If you have been
 a participant in the United State’s democratic system, you know this is not so. According 
to the laws of logic, quantity does not dictate truth. We have already discredited relative
 morality as folly reasoning. It makes no sense to leave the deciding of truth to the majority.
 For instance, if you have a group of 700 Lord of the Ring enthusiasts who believe that 
Middle Earth had been real at a certain time of history, and only 500 who believe otherwise,
 the latter will not become true, no matter how hard you believe in it. Societies as a whole
 CAN and WILL be wrong, perhaps because of lack of knowledge or discernment.

As for the controversy on evolution, I have only one thing to say: Evolution, that is, 
Macro Evolution (all life eventually generated from non living things), is only a theory. 
As a matter of fact, it has not been able to be proven up till this day. With all the
 scientific breakthroughs that this society has come upon, with all the historical and 
archeological data, no man has been able to give a valid argument or proof that macro 
evolution exists. Even so, scientists say they believe by faith. According to them, it is
 the only believable explanation of the origin of life. Or, perhaps I should rephrase that: 
It is the only naturalistic explanation of the origin of life; Naturalism, being the philosophy 
which claims that only matter exists, nothing apart from it. Science is purely naturalistic 
in itself.

Still, there is some folly in this naturalistic point of view. If one acquires a world view 
that is set on purely analyzing only that which is matter and discrediting all 
supernatural explanation, then evolution is quite a reasonable theory. Still, it is 
obvious that when one views the world with this specific mind set, the person could 
be prone to closing the mind to their philosophy’s own explanation. Two men, a
 Buddhist and a naturalist, can see a man walking through a wall, and the naturalist 
will say that it is just a cluster of memorized images, flashing through his eyes in a 
moment of absence and relaxation. Yet, the Buddhist could say, the man walked 
through the wall, because the wall is merely an illusion, it is not real. Because of 
their mental predisposition, they view the same thing in two very different ways.
 Both of them can be wrong, but there is only one answer that is correct, in an absolute 
truth. 

Secondly, naturalism is also refutable. By denying the existence of anything beyond 
matter, then what is space? What is time? Or better even, what are thoughts. As 
of now, there is no evidence of a thought, no concrete bases on which to analyze 
a thought which is not represented in some way, and no matter in which to classify
 a thought, whether it is solid, liquid, gas, or plasma. How do these people come 
up with a theory anyway, if they do not believe in anything apart from mater? 
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. 

Now, by refuting evolution, I just wanted to make it clear that there is a possibility 
that if evolution is wrong, there is a creator. Every building has a maker, every creation 
has a creator. Logically, it would be more acceptable to believe there is such a supreme 
creator in the universe. Pause and think, what created the Earth? What created rocks 
and gravity and plasma? Then, what put them there? The Big Bang? Where did atoms 
come from? Energy? How did movement come to be? Who created time? It simply
 makes more sense to believe there is a supreme creator, and if there is such, there is 
a supreme truth. Not all religions can be correct. The quantity of believers, the amount 
of faith, how naturalistic it may sound, does not matter. A lot of people must be wrong;
 then again, a lot of people must be right. 

And if there is a Creator, then there is a religion. Now, perhaps you argue, well,
 perhaps the creator of this universe is unknowable. Perhaps everyone is just wrong
 in their ideas of a God. Agnosticism* is another self refuting theory. Just the mere 
fact that we have knowledge there could be a GOD, means we already have some
 knowledge of the concept of a creator. If there is a revelation that there is a God, 
then there must be a truth found to Him. Just by saying the word God, you have 
admitted you already do know something about a supreme being, therefore he is
 knowable. When will people open their eyes and use their minds for the conquest 
of truth, not limiting themselves to meager doubts and objections, world views 
spewed out of their mouths with no previous thought or logic! There is an absolute 
truth and it can be known as long as we open ourselves to find it. 

Now, the reason I say this, is because religions that believe in a creator do have moral 
codes, created to ensure our well being in life and the pleasure of the creator. I will not 
dwell much upon this subject, because to choose a certain religion, would be to debate 
why it is specifically true, and I rather that remain for another enlightening discussion. 
Still, I want you to keep in mind that moral relativity is self refuting, therefore folly, 
and morality is not limited to social groups; evolution is merely a theory and does not 
necessarily support moral relativity; there is equal or more chance that there is a creator; 
and finally, my friend, and I want you to treasure this profoundly in your hearts, the
 truth that will expose all other truths: you can be wrong. Out of all the knowledge 
there is to know in the universe, we know not even a second of eternity.

And now, to reach the obvious conclusion on the subject of Moral Relativism, all I
 have to say is this: evidence and logic prepare its demise. Evolution is not bases 
enough to support it, as this is only a theory, it is not a logically stable argument,
 since it is self refuting, and it promotes the steady demoralization of our country, 
leading it to social stagnation. The otherwise contradicted statement, which is 
Absolute Truth is not only more edifying in the long run to the individual’s
 emotional/spiritual health, but it is also to society. Creationism has also been
 proven to be far more logical than evolution, in the sense that evolution is only
 limited to naturalistic points of view, a folly world view. 

Now, as to the defense of absolute truth, All I have to say is this: The truth is found 
inside of us; not as individuals, but as human beings. Let me explain, every single human
 being in this world is different from the other. No two people have the same background
 or upbringing, belief or nationality. All people do have one thing in common, though,
 and that is conscience. Within our mental capabilities to understand and discern 
between subject maters, we have been given the ability, especially as human, to 
discern between good or bad, almost by instinct. That is the conscience. 

This voice inside our ego has been denied and crushed underfoot by the so-called 
logical reasoning of the XX century. The more people think of arguments, trying to 
choose themselves what is right and wrong, their conscience is being dimmed and 
shortened. The conscience is the primal instinct towards morality. All people in the
 world, including Puerto Rico, United States, South America, India, China, everyone,
 has a conscience. 

*Agnosticism: the philosophy that there is a Supreme Being, but he is unknowable.
Doing evil and good are both learned behaviors, but the conscience is static in the 
discernment of the two. It is up to the person to choose to follow one of the two. 

I would like to address your conscience once again, reader, regarding the event you 
have read about at the beginning of this essay. What was your first impression? 
Was it shock? Disdain? Disgust? Is so, then your brain is working to its more healthy
 capacities. Note, I said first impression. I’ll explain why. Most human minds
 immediately start debating the initial feeling. First they will tell themselves: Look at 
the situation in which the man was in! He lived in a poor country with very little education. 
He was probably driven by his desperate fear of death. It is more the government’s 
fault, than it is his own. To that individual person, it was good to rape the 8 month 
year old little girl, though to me it may be undignified. According to the situation, it 
does seem as moral relativism could be used rightfully, or can it? Then again, Ask 
yourselves: Why did the man run? Why did the child rapist run! It seems as if he 
suppressed his conscience to force the act of rape. He felt morality’s burden upon his 
shoulders. He had no excuse. He knew exactly what he was doing, and that it went 
against a moral law far greater than him. It does not mater how much he can convince 
himself otherwise.

I encourage you, friend, not to deceive yourself; nor to tolerate dishonor nor to settle
 with your failures as human beings. I am convinced that there is an absolute truth,
 I am convinced that it can and has been found. Look inside or yourself. Try to put 
all the filth and lies you have been force feeding yourself since you had an age to 
reason, and see what speaks within your heart. It says to be truthful and not to lie; 
to love and not to hate; to speak in goodness, and not evil; to be filled with joy,
 not drunkenness, to seek for the truth, and not settle for lies; and if you listen closely,
 I am certain, that the deepest philosophical questions of this past century will be
 answered, the greatest problems of humanity, solved, and best of all, 
everyone will be happy to agree.