Moral relativism is deeply imbedded in our culture from being actively promoted in our media and educational system. One moral relativist described well this belief system in a letter to the editor 2/18/06: “We simply define our own ethics, with whatever aids we deem worthy.” A classic example of moral relativism from another letter writer 2/2/06: “We need to let abortion be a decision between a woman, her doctor, and her God.”

      The absurdity of moral relativism is demonstrated by considering operations of sociopaths. The crimes of serial killers and genocidal world leaders are so cruel we easily recognize their lack of conscience. We obtain some comfort thinking these types of people are far removed from us. Unfortunately, the sensationalized cases are but the tip of the iceberg. One source1 estimates 4% of the population have no conscience whatsoever, and if you add to this the more common characteristic of faulty conscience that justifies or minimizes actions, it is a significant portion of our population that doesn’t accept accountability. Most who operate without conscience are clever enough to evade detection or prosecution, or operate unethically/immorally yet within the law. Most look and behave publicly like normal folks and may be your next door neighbor, your spouse or child, a quiet co-worker. Many are charming, multi-talented and found in positions of power. In your local community, they may be high level civic and church leaders, CEOs of corporations, administrators of hospitals, etc.

      In a legal system based on moral relativism (based on their own definition), anyone who justifies their own actions avoids prosecution. Moral relativists (like atheists) must step outside their belief system to state an objective basis exists for determining right and wrong. Once they admit we need laws and that some laws are good and some bad, they have a serious irreconcilable quandary because laws always impose morality, and their motto is “No one has a right to impose their morality on anyone else”.

      A local moral relativist writes that the U.S, a “largely secular society” does “pretty well” “based on collective morals and grounded in ‘We the people” because we “put people in prison for stealing, and for murder”. Calling ours a “secular society” ignores the fact that founding documents of our nation were based on rights not given by humans but “endowed by our Creator”. The very basis of the American Revolution, as clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence (both in the Preamble and A Declaration of Rights), was not majority rule but an objective standard of human rights entitled by God. It would be irrational and illogical to conclude that the writers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights based them on a different belief system than the Declaration of Independence.

      At the time that the Supreme Court made abortion the law of the land, the overwhelming majority of “We the people” in this nation believed abortion was murder. This view was not only supported by the Bible, but by logic, reason, and knowledge of embryology at that time. Since then, information via high-resolution ultrasound and other technology make obvious the humanity and feelings of the unborn. Many feel bad about having had an abortion, some to the point of torment, while others have no conscience problem.

      According to moral relativism, abortion for a mother is only wrong if she thinks it’s wrong. In a rational legal system, however, a mother’s conscience or lack of conscience regarding her abortion is as irrelevant as the self-justification of a sociopath.

      The last quoted moral relativist says the “self-defense” plea sometimes justifies killing based on “what makes sense to us”. The truth is, self-defense as a justification for killing a person is not subjective in our legal system, must be argued in court and fit specific criteria.  That is, unless the person killed is an unborn child.  Prior to the decision that made abortion the law of the land in 1973, criteria existed for what justified abortion as a threat to the mother’s life.  Since then, unborn children in our nation may be killed for any reason the mother doesn’t want to be pregnant, at any time during the pregnancy.  Moral relativists are accountable for this ongoing genocide.  It is a tragically fascinating irony that their belief system is promoted as the compassionate one by our educational system, yet it cannot withstand moral or intellectual scrutiny.    Fathom the illogic of thinking a belief system is compassionate when it has justified the killing of over 40 million people in this nation alone!

Annie Bukacek MD