The moral relativist has backed himself into a corner. His moral judgments have merely become a matter of how he subjectively feels at the moment.
They know that they are trapped by this dilemma. Therefore, they will either attack the idea of God, or, more responsibly, they will attempt to find a more adequate basis for their moral relativism. Consequently, one relativist responded:
· “I can be right if my judgment is in accordance to the rules of an establishment, within rules on a road, within laws of a land, within the moral code of my culture.”
I thought your answer was very revealing. When we reject God, we have to elevate something else to fill the moral vacuum. Why? Because we require a standard of moral judgment!
Consequently, you have deified the State, but the State makes a poor deity-substitute. For one thing, once the State is deified, it can no long be judged or held to account. Why not? The relativist has already admitted that his moral judgment is just subjective. However, once the State is deified, its judgment reigns supreme over all subjective judgments.
Also, we recognize that our newly appointed deity cannot be God. It’s judgments are just as fallible and relative as our own. Besides, its judgments are always changing, even from day-to-day. Consequently, when its judgments change, we too must also march in lock-step.
If this is so, how can we take its judgments as sacrosanct? We can’t, even though the relativist has elevated the State to a position of near-deity.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. By empowering the State in this manner, we have removed accountability and have opened the door to all forms of abuse.