In the words of a book title, written by Dr. Greg Bahnsen, the Christian ought to respond to the claim of moral relativism by “Pushing the Antithesis.” But what does this mean? Put simply, it means that the relativist cannot consistently live up to his/her claim of relativism. Though they may profess relative morality with their lips, they do not live according to this in principle. Because of this, there arises a major inconsistency within the relativist’s worldview which produces a philosophical antithesis (conflict).
Firstly, it should be noted that relative morality is no kind of morality at all. That is to say that relative morality completely destroys the notion of ethics altogether. This is so, because the very nature of ethical assertions calls for their objective quality. The demand of ethics is that one must change or alter their behavior to fit within a certain (objective) moral range. If, however, morality were relative, there would be no reason, no demand, for any transgressor to change their behavior- they would simply rather change their ethic! Thus, relativity within ethics destroys the very nature of ethics. Relative morality, as oxymoronic as it is, is no kind of morality at all.
For one to claim that morality is relative, is to claim that there are no objective standards by which one should be held accountable. If there are no objective standards by which one is held accountable, then anyone can do as they like. Man becomes his own law; a law unto himself. And yet, as mentioned before, the relativist does not live consistently with the consequences of their claim. For, directly after the relativist champions moral relativity, we are told that we must be inclusive. Tolerance ought to be extended to everyone, even to those of differing beliefs. No one is allowed to condemn another individual for living according to a different ethic.
And yet, in their demand for tolerance, they violate their very own principle of relativity. They claim that there are no moral absolutes in order to advance their moral absolute. They claim that no one has the right to tell others how to act, all the while telling others how they are to rightly act.
The apologist must expose this contradiction, and push the internal conflict within unbelieving thought. They must uncover the fact that the unbeliever can never escape objectivity, and yet objectivity only makes sense in a world wherein there is an objective law giver. The unbeliever must be shown that it is ONLY the Biblical worldview which can reconcile the things which they themselves take for granted.
“Where is the wise? Where is the Scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Cor. 1:20).
