Moral Relativism Argument

657 Words3 Pages
In “A Refutation of Moral Relativism,” Peter Kreeft argues that there are no moral absolutes because of the different cultures. Kreeft presents the moral relativism argument in his first two premises, through modus tollens, that if moral absolutism was true, then all would agree and that not everyone agrees. The conclusion that follows is that moral absolutism is false. Although many cultures practice different moral values, it does not mean that there is no absolute morally correct value. Kreeft argues in the first premise that if moral absolutism was true, then all would agree. The problem with this premise is that it mistakes value and value opinions as the same. Kreeft states, “Different cultures may have different opinions about what is morally valuable, just as they may have different opinions about what happens after death. But this does…show more content…
Kreeft states, “Moral rightness is a matter of obedience to cultural values. That it is the right to obey your culture’s values . . . that values differ with cultures.” Due to the effect of changing moral values, one cannot deny the value that another believes to be true. As stated before, the culture that allows people to commit child scarification believes it to be a morally good thing since it serves as a form of faith to God. Although the practice may sound morally wrong for another culture, denying one’s culture only perceives that the other culture is morally right. Also if one does not abide by their value, then one will feel as if they feel they are committing a wrong act. Values are changing, not only through cultures, but also in time. For example, divorce was a morally wrong value. Compared to today, divorce is now tolerable in many places such as the United States. Moral values tend to change as people revolutionize. As long as this is true, moral relativism is

More about Moral Relativism Argument

Open Document