Moral Relativism Failure #2: A False Assumption

Moral relativism is based on the false assumption that the existence of differences of opinion equates to the nonexistence of any “correct” opinion. A moral relativist may argue that we cannot know which version of morality is right, and so none of them can be wrong. But does the alleged existence of multiple moral belief systems necessarily mean that all of these belief systems are correct, regardless of whether or not we can know which is right? It seems to me that this is the same as saying “Since we cannot agree, and we really can’t know who is right, we both must be right.” But two sides holding conflicting views about an issue cannot both be right (although they can both be wrong), regardless of whether or not we know who holds the right view.

To further understand this concept, consider the following scenario: If Johnny’s mother asks him where his piggy bank is, Johnny will tell her a location that either does or does not correspond to where it actually is. Notice that even if Johnny says that it is under his bed when his mother thought it was on his night-stand, it could actually be in his closet because his younger brother moved it there the night before, unbeknownst to Johnny. Given this example, I can imagine a situation in which Johnny knows where the piggy bank is, but his mother does not; his mother knows where it is, but Johnny does not; and when they both do not. Outside of shattering the bank into multiple pieces, I fail to think of a situation where Johnny and his mother can both hold differing views about the location of the bank that both turn out to be correct. Likewise, differing opinions about morality do nothing to prove the truth or falsity of any specific moral concept. Just because one culture may not know with certainty that either their views or the views of another culture are right or wrong does nothing to the right- or wrongness of the morality of any of these views.