Moral relativists think moral absolutes don’t exist because cultures differ in their moral beliefs.
But is this a rational inference? No; here are some reasons why.
First, it confuses the accurate knowledge of moral truths with the existence of moral truths. Differing moral opinions have to do with knowledge (or lack thereof) of moral truths, not their existence.
Second, if we say absolute moral truths don’t exist because cultures disagree on them, then we must deny the existence of absolute cosmological truths because scientists across different cultures have disagreed about them. But we don’t want to do that because we might end up denying the objective shape of our planet and its relation to the sun.
Third, this argument begs the question, assuming that cultural agreement is a condition for moral truth. But if there were such a thing as absolute moral truth, then it doesn’t matter whether cultures agree or not.
Finally, in many cases what appears to be a disagreement between cultures on moral principles is actually nothing more than a disagreement on their perception of facts.
Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl give this example in their book Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air: in India killing and eating cows is immoral. At first glance it would seem we have conflicting moral principles (unless you think hamburgers are products of murder). In reality, however, it’s merely a difference in what we think about cows. In India they don’t eat cows because they consider cows sacred. In Western cultures we do not. So, the moral principle is the same—respect what is sacred—but our understanding of the facts is different.
For these reasons, therefore, different moral beliefs don’t undermine the existence of moral absolutes.
***This article was originally published by Catholic Answers Magazine Online on January 9, 2024.