If the people of this age really believed morality was relative they would not so passionately go out of their way to daily call those they disagree with "bigots", "homophobes" or fire someone from their job for their political contributions. They would rather, celebrate diversity. For if all morality is relative then there would be no person's belief or philosophy that is better or worse than another's. Each person's truth would be equally valid. But, as we all know, no one lives that way because God created us in His image and absolutes are unavoidable in His world. So next time you see this kind of reaction ask them how they know you are immoral or wrong? What standard or authority are they appealing to when they reach this conclusion? Their own? If there is no objective morality, then why is our view wrong?
Relativists often tell me they think that racism, genocide and torture is wrong and think everyone should think likewise .. to which I respond that this demonstrates that they believe in objective morality. To this they often reply:
Relativist: "If I say, 'A cooked egg is better than a raw egg. Would you reply, "You stated an opinion about eggs. You must believe in an objective standard of egg quality."
Reply: You would indeed believe in an objective standard in egg quality if you thought that I was also morally obligated to believe a cooked egg is better than a raw egg. If you kept silent and and your personal preference to yourself then it would remain a subjective opinion but when you begin to say everyone needs to believe the same thing then you are appealing to something you believe to be objective, a truth that exists outside of yourself. And this is what relativists do all the time without recognizing the inconsistency.
Incoherent Ramblings About Genocide and Cooked Eggs