This is from Relativism: the loss of ‘truth’ by Francis J. Beckwith and Greg Koukl
Classically, moral systems have had at least three characteristics.
- First, morality has been viewed as a supremely authoritative guide to action, trumping considerations of preference, taste, custom, self-interest, or individual fancy. Moral questions are among the most important we can ask, holding the highest priority in life.
- Second, morality includes a prescriptive code of conduct. It doesn’t merely describe a state of affairs; it directs how things should be. Moral rules are action guides that carry with them a sense of obligation, defining how people ought to conduct themselves. These injunctions apply not just to actions but to attitudes and motives as well.
- Third, morality is universal. Moral rules are not arbitrary and personal but are public, applying equally to all people in relevantly similar situations. If a specific act is wrong for one person, then it is equally wrong for another.
These last two characteristics – the ‘oughtness’ of morality and the universal nature of moral rules – are important criteria. Relativism, however, rejects all universal moral rules and abandons the idea of oughtness. It does not refine our understanding of what morality entails but rather rejects it. Indeed, relativism does not even qualify as an ethical system, we can prove this a couple of ways.