Socrates on Moral Relativism

Peter Kreeft
(Revised and edited by Jefrey D. Breshears)

T he following is one in a series of dialogues between Socrates, who has mysteriously

ARE VALUES SUBJECTIVE? PP: You mean “objective to me” equals “objective
subjectivity” and “subjective in themselves” equals
Socrates: Well, Paula, here we are again in our
“subjective objectivity”?
outdoor classroom in the grove of academe. Are
you ready for your Philosophy 101 final exam? S: Uh... yes, something like that. But I think we had
better define our terms before we begin. For if we
Paula: I think so. You know, I’m still not sure who
cannot agree about the meaning of the terms values,
you are or how you got here, but I’m certainly
subjective and objective, then we cannot
grateful for your free tutoring. It’s been like totally
meaningfully disagree about whether values are
awesome!
objective or subjective.
S: How could I put a price on something that is
PP: Yeah, like that was going to be the first point in
priceless?
my paper: defining my terms.
PP: Well, Desperate State University certainly
S: Very good. Now, what are your definitions?
does. The tuition around here goes up every year.
PP: They’re very simple. I mean by values simply
S: Indeed. How could my pupil Plato ever have
“rightness and wrongness.” Objective simply means
foreseen that his great invention of the university
“independent of the human mind,” while subjective
would one day be in such a desperate state? But
means “dependent on the human mind.” How’s
here – are you ready to read to me your paper, as we
that?
planned, defending the subjectivity of values?
S: I think those are fine definitions. They are simple
PP: Yes, Socrates... You know, maybe we can save
and clear, and they are what people usually mean by
ourselves a lot of time. Maybe neither of us is in
those words. Now let us get on to your
error. Maybe values are whatever we think they are,
arguments against the objectivity of values.
so that if I think they’re subjective, then they’re
subjective to me. If you think they’re objective, PP: I found seven arguments. Here they are:
well, then, they’re objective – at least to you. The first argument is unanswerable because it is
based on undeniable facts – facts discovered by
S: That may be a statement of your position, but it
sociologists and anthropologists. The fact is simply
certainly is not of mine. I do not believe values are
that individuals and cultures have very different
objective to me – I believe they are objective,
values, different moralities. As Descartes says, you
period. “Objective to me” – what possible sense
can’t imagine any idea so strange that it hasn’t been
could that make? Is that not the same sort of
taught by some philosopher. And you can’t imagine
nonsense and contradiction as “subjective in
any morality so weird that it hasn’t been taught by
themselves”?

1
SOCRATES MEETS JESUS • Dialogue 1: Socrates On Moral Relativism 2

some society. Anyone who thinks values aren’t human freedom, and to preserve human freedom we
relative to culture simply doesn’t know much about must preserve our creativity – our ability to create
other cultures. our own values freely.
Here’s a second argument, also based on fact. Well, there you have it, Socrates. Nice and short
The fact is that we are conditioned by our society, and sweet.
and different societies condition us differently. If I
S: There is no question about its being short, but I
had been born in a Hindu society, I would have
have a few questions about its sweetness. My first
Hindu values today. We don’t discover values as we
question is about that term of yours – “values.”
discover cures for diseases; we get them the same
way we get diseases – we catch them from our PP: I thought you agreed with my definition of it.
society.
S: I do. But I wonder whether you mean by it the
My third argument is practical, based on the
law of right and wrong, or just the feeling of right
consequences of believing subjectivism or
and wrong.
objectivism. The consequence of subjectivism is
tolerance; the consequence of objectivism is PP: Ummm... the feeling of right and wrong.
intolerance and dogmatism and trying to impose
S: So you would rather talk about moral values or
your values on others because you think everyone
feelings than about moral law.
ought to believe your way. If you believe values are
only yours, you don’t try to force people to believe PP: Yes. Definitely.
in them.
S: That’s what I was afraid of. You see, you beg the
My fourth argument is the primacy of motive.
question in your terminology. As you use it, the
To do the right thing for the wrong reason is wrong,
word “values” connotes something subjective rather
but you can’t blame someone for doing the wrong
than something objective – feelings rather than
thing for the right reason, the right motive. Morality
laws. I think your reluctance to talk about moral
is a matter of the heart – motive – and that
laws means you believe there are no moral laws.
obviously is subjective.
My fifth argument is circumstances, or the PP: Of course there are moral laws. The Ten
situation. Moral choices are conditioned by the Commandments, for instance....
situation, and that’s relative to thousands of things.
S: You see, Paula, the point with regard to
There can’t be the same rules for all situations. You
knowledge is that there are only two kinds of people
can imagine an exception to every rule in some
in the world: the foolish, who think they are wise,
situations. For instance, it can be good to kill if you
and the wise, who know they are foolish. The same
kill a homicidal aggressor, good to steal if you steal
point with regard to morality is that there are only
a weapon from a madman, good to lie if you’re
two kinds of people: sinners, who think they are
lying to the Nazis about where the Jews are hiding.
saints, and saints, who know they are sinners. I will
There is no absolute morality – it’s always relative
never cease to teach this embarrassing truth because
to the situation.
without it, I am convinced, there simply is no
Now, my sixth argument is that it makes no
knowledge and no morality – only the deceptive
sense to call an objective act good or evil. When
appearances of them.
you see an evil deed, like a murder, you feel
terrible, but the morality is in our feelings, in how PP: Yes, I remember reading about your encounter
we feel about the act – not in the act itself. Where is with the oracle at Delphi. She pronounced you the
the evil? Is it in the gun, the trigger finger, the wisest of all the philosophers in Greece because
wound? No – those are simply facts. We interpret only you recognized your own ignorance.
the facts in terms of our feelings. We add value
S: Yes. Self-awareness and humility are among the
colors to the black-and-white world of physical
highest virtues.
facts.
And finally, my seventh argument is that PP: All right, let’s begin. But remember, if you
objective values would mean we are not free. Either can’t refute every one of my objections to objective
we are free to create our own values, or values are values, I will have proved my thesis.
imposed on us as a hammer imposes its will upon a
nail. To preserve human dignity we must preserve
SOCRATES MEETS JESUS • Dialogue 1: Socrates On Moral Relativism 3

ARE VALUES CULTURALLY RELATIVE? scientists have not proved that values are relative or
subjective for the simple reason that values cannot
S: Agreed. Now then, your first argument was that
be measured by scientific instruments.
scientists have discovered that different cultures
have different moralities, isn’t that correct? PP: Well, value-opinions, then. Anthropologists
and sociologists have gone to many different places
PP: Yes.
all over the world and taken surveys, you know.
S: And you claimed this argument was
S: I know. And even there you are simply mistaken
unanswerable because it was based on fact, isn’t
about the facts. Even value-opinions are not wholly
that right?
relative to cultures or individuals. Now, let’s look
PP: That’s right. closely at some of the facts you came up with to
prove your point. Could you give a few examples?
S: But surely that is a mistake in logic?
PP: Certainly. Suicide was honorable for an ancient
PP: What do you mean?
Roman, but not for a Jew or a Christian. Usury*
S: Can’t you make a logically unwarranted was wrong in the Middle Ages but okay today. It’s
inference from a fact? wrong for women to bare their breasts in America
or Britain, but not in the South Seas. Value-opinions
PP: Of course. But how do you think I did that?
vary tremendously. And that’s a fact.
S: By using that ambiguous term of yours, “values.”
S: But not totally – and that’s another fact. Doesn’t
Opinions or feelings about values are one thing; but
every society have some code of honor, and justice,
true, real, objective values would be another thing,
and modesty (just to address your three examples)?
wouldn’t they?
PP: I think so....
PP: Well, sure, if they existed. But what’s your
point? S: So those three value-opinions, at any rate, are
universal. No society prizes dishonor above honor,
S: Though value-opinions may be relative to
or injustice above justice, or immodesty above
different cultures and subjective to individuals,
modesty. And there are many more things like this.
that does not necessarily mean that real values are.
Perhaps we should call these things “principles” –
For even if people’s opinions about something vary
I mean things like the law of fair play and courage
with time or place or the prejudices of teachers, that
and generosity and honesty and unselfishness.
does not prove that the thing itself varies in these
I know that the rules of behavior differ greatly, but
ways, does it?
different rules of behavior seem designed to
PP: But right and wrong are matters of opinion, or differently apply or obey the same principles.
conviction. So when opinions or convictions vary,
PP: So you’re distinguishing the principles from
right and wrong vary.
the rules, and saying the values are in the principles,
S: Ah, but that is precisely the question at issue: are which are the same for everyone?
right and wrong just matters of opinion? You are
S: Yes – I’m even saying that opinions about
begging the question, assuming exactly the
principles are the same for everyone. Did you ever
conclusion you must prove: that right and wrong are
hear of a society that valued dishonesty above
matters of subjective opinion.
honesty, or rewarded homicidal maniacs and
Now, not only that, but there is a second and
punished life-saving surgeons?
even simpler mistake in your argument: it is not
based on a fact. PP: Hmmm... no. So what is the relation between
principles and rules?
PP: Of course it is. Don’t you know about different
cultures? Surely you know about science – about
anthropology and sociology?
* Usury is the practice of charging excessive interest on
S: Of course I know about anthropology and loans. Usury was condemned under the Mosaic Law and
sociology. But anthropology and sociology are not, considered exploitative and sinful by the Roman Catholic
strictly-speaking, sciences. And by the way, Church in medieval times.
SOCRATES MEETS JESUS • Dialogue 1: Socrates On Moral Relativism 4

S: I think it is like the relation between meaning sees a color no one ever saw before, or hears a note
and expression. The same meaning can be no one ever heard before.
expressed in various ways and in different
PP: But isn’t an individual free to choose the rules
languages. So the same value can be expressed in
by which he lives his life?
different codes of rules. If there were no common
principles, we could not even argue about which set S: I think not, and I think I can show you that.
of rules was better, because we would have no
PP: Go ahead.
common meaning for “better.”
S: Do you think I also am free to create wholly new
PP: You mean we couldn’t even be doing what
values and live by them?
we’re doing now – arguing about morality?
PP: Well, if I am then you are, too.
S: Right. Now here is a fact: people do argue about
morality. They nearly always assume the same S: Okay, then let us experiment and test your
principles, and each tries to prove that he or she is theory. I am much older than you are. Therefore,
right according to those principles. No one argues I declare that I am wiser than you and that my
about whether it’s better to be fair or unfair, loyal values are superior to yours.
or disloyal, full of hate or full of love. They argue
PP: That’s silly, Socrates. That’s an illogical
not about principles but applications.
argument.
PP: I see. That sounds like a very
S: But why? What if those really
simple point – the distinction
are my values? What if I were
between principles and
teaching a class and you were in it,
applications... But don’t you think
and you could only pass my course
societies in the past often
or make a good grade if you were
absolutized their relativities and
one of the older students?
confused applications and
principles? PP: Well, of course that wouldn’t
be fair.
S: Yes, and your society does just
S: But what is “fair”? Remember:
the opposite: it relativizes
according to you, fairness or justice
absolutes, and reduces principles
is merely subjective and relative.
to the level of applications. Two
Therefore, it is whatever I choose to
wrongs don’t make a right, and
make it. How dare you now assume
two mistakes don’t make a truth.
some objective and universal
They are simply opposite errors.
standard of justice to which you expect me to
PP: But Socrates, just because most societies have conform! Why should I conform to your subjective
generally agreed about values, that doesn’t mean standard of justice? What right do you have to
there can’t be a society that comes up with new impose your personal, subjective values on me? My
values tomorrow. subjective standard is just as valid as yours
if there is no ultimate objective standard!
S: No society has ever invented a new value. That
PP: Oh... but... hmmm... I’m stumped.
would be like inventing a new sound or a new color.
All we can do is put the primary sounds and colors S: Let me put it to you another way: Do you think
together in new ways. there is anyone in the world right now who is doing
anything that is wrong?
PP: Then what happened in Nazi Germany? Didn’t
they create new values? PP: Well, of course – obviously. Child molesters,
for instance.
S: Certainly not. They just denied and rejected old
ones. The only radical novelty in values that any S: Good. Then you see, Paula, you are a moral
society has ever come up with has been negations. absolutist after all! Your theoretical moral
Just as an occasional person shows up who is color relativism was only a facade.
blind, or tone deaf. But no one ever shows up who
SOCRATES MEETS JESUS • Dialogue 1: Socrates On Moral Relativism 5

ARE VALUES SOCIALLY-CONDITIONED? And one other thing, Paula: Your other premise
is also false: Ethical teachers do in fact agree about
PP: All right, Socrates, I suppose you win round
many things, including basic values.
one. But let’s go to round two. How do you refute
my second objection – that society conditions
values in us? If I had been born into a Hindu society
TOLERANCE AND MORAL RELATIVISM
I would have Hindu values, and so on.
PP: Okay, so much for my second argument. But
S: Once again you resort to that slippery word
what about my third one? Aren’t you in favor of
“values”. We must bear in mind the distinction we
tolerance?
agreed to. What society conditions in us, what we
have, is opinions about values. But to associate S: I am, but I do not see what that has to do with
these opinions with true values themselves is to your argument that values are subjective.
confuse the issue, is it not?
PP: Well, it’s simple: if you think your values are
PP: But at least we can agree that society objective and absolute, you’ll probably try to
determines those value opinions. impose them on others.
S: Determines or conditions? S: But if they are not “my” values, but actually real
values, then I can no more impose them on someone
PP: Uh... what’s the difference?
else than I can impose the laws of gravity on other
S: An artist’s palette and brushes condition his people. They simple are. In which case, teaching
painting, but they still leave him free to choose values is like teaching the laws of physics.
within the bounds set by his conditioning. Parents
PP: But won’t you be much more tolerant if you
condition their children not to lie and cheat and
think values are subjective – a matter of individual
steal, but the children are free to disobey.
preference – and less tolerant if you think they are
Conditioning leaves you free. Determining does
objective and absolute?
not.
S: I think not, and I think I can show you why.
PP: That sounds reasonable... My psychology and
Tell me, what modern enterprise do you think has
sociology textbooks don’t make that distinction.
benefitted and progressed the most because of
S: That’s because their authors are not toleration and open-mindedness?
philosophers.
PP: Uhhh... science, I suppose.
PP: Well, I still think if I were born a Hindu I’d
S: I agree. Now then, does science believe its
have Hindu values.
discoveries are only subjective?
S: Not necessarily. Has everyone who was born into
PP: No. But it’s silly to try to impose them on
a Hindu society grown up to accept Hindu values?
others by force.
Or are there rebels, or nonconformists, or
independent thinkers? Do some Hindus become S: Yes it is, and it’s just as silly (not to mention,
Buddhists, or atheists, or even Christians? counterproductive) to try to impose ethical values
by force. The parallel holds.
PP: Well, yeah, I’m sure some do.
PP: But people have tried to do that throughout
S: Then obviously they have only been conditioned
history – for instance, the Inquisition burned
by their environment and culture – not determined.
thousands of heretics.
PP: All right, but these factors do condition us, at
S: Yes, and other foolish people tried to impose
least. We do learn different values from different
scientific theories by force or threat: the Galileo
societies.
case, for instance. The parallel still holds. Both
S: But not wholly different values, as we have fields certainly have their fools.
already seen. No society sanctions murder, or
PP: I suppose. But it seems strange to say that
values cowardice, or teaches that it’s best to be
ethics deals with truth in the same ways as science.
totally selfish.
SOCRATES MEETS JESUS • Dialogue 1: Socrates On Moral Relativism 6

S: But if we believed it did not, if we thought no you feel guilty? – unless, of course, you’re a person
ethical teaching could be true, why would we pay who has a seared conscience.
any attention to it? Values are important to us only
PP: Yes.
if they are true values – isn’t that true?
S: Now that doesn’t feel like the rules of a purely
PP: I thought values were important to us because
subjective and manmade game, does it?
of our emotional investment in them. They are our
cherished opinions. PP: Hmmm... I’ll have to give that some more
thought.... I guess tolerance doesn’t prove
S: Opinions about what?
subjectivity after all, does it?
PP: What?
S: Oh, it’s much more than that. It proves just the
S: Yes, that is my question: Opinions about what? opposite. It actually proves objectivity.
PP: I mean, like what do you mean? PP: Oh really, now? How’s that?
S: I mean, is there a reality behind our opinions? If S: Very simply. The real value of tolerance
not, how can we have an opinion? An opinion is an presupposes real values. Do you say that tolerance
opinion about something, and that something is the is really valuable?
standard to judge one opinion as closer to it than
PP: Suppose I don’t. Suppose I just say it is my
another. Isn’t that how we judge opinions?
subjective preference to be tolerant?
PP: Well, but that would imply an objective truth
S: Then suppose I say it is my preference to be
over and above the opinions.
intolerant?
S: Precisely.
PP: Well, then, I suppose I would say that we just
PP: But we only have opinions – we don’t really disagree, that’s all.
know the truth.
S: Exactly – that’s all. Then we can no longer argue
S: But we want to. Our opinions reflect upon the or debate. And if you feel passionately that
truth – they aim at the truth. If there were no truth tolerance is preferable, then all we can do is fight. It
there, how could we aim at it? then becomes a matter of power and a contest of our
wills – in which case we really do try to “impose
PP: Oh... Well, then, I guess I don’t mean to say
our
that values are opinions. They are more like
values” on each other. Do you choose to do that?
feelings.
PP: Of course not. I choose to be tolerant.
S: Well, then, consider this: what are these value-
feelings you speak of? Do you not feel called, or S: And do you believe this choice of yours to be
challenged, or even compelled, so to speak, by tolerant is really better than its opposite?
moral values?
PP: Well... if I say ‘yes’...
PP: Well... I guess you could put it that way.
S: Then you are admitting there is a real “better.”
S: Well, if these values were only subjective, how
PP: And there can be no “better” without a real
could they make such demands on you?
“good.” So then, there is a real good – an objective
PP: That’s simple: they come from within me. I am moral value.
committed to them. I am bound to them.
S: Correct. And here is another point: If you think
S: But if you bind yourself, how are you really that tolerance of all values and value systems is
bound? You can just as easily loose yourself. Do good, are you not then “imposing your values” –
you really think that you can? For instance, can you your value system, which includes the value of
be selfish and dishonest with a good conscience? tolerance – on other people or other cultures, not all
of whom agree that tolerance is a value? Many
PP: I don’t think so.
traditional cultures, in fact, see tolerance as a
S: If you disobey real values, don’t they weakness – as a vice, not a virtue. So for you to say
continuously haunt you, condemn you, and make that everyone ought to be tolerant is for you to say
SOCRATES MEETS JESUS • Dialogue 1: Socrates On Moral Relativism 7

that your value system, with tolerance, is really S: The only fool is the one who refuses to
better than others without tolerance. Isn’t that acknowledge his or her foolishness!
tantamount to “imposing your values” on others?
PP: Well, I never
MORALITY & SUBJECTIVE MOTIVES
thought of that.
PP: You know, Socrates, I always thought
S: Do so now, please.
morality couldn’t be logical because it was a
PP: Do what? matter of subjective motive – which is my fourth
argument. Do you really think that motive isn’t the
S: Think about it.
most important thing in morality?
PP: Well, I don’t
S: Morality certainly is motive, but not only
consider that to be
motive. Even if motive is primary, that does not
imposing my
exclude other, secondary aspects of morality.
values on them.
PP: Why do you say we need anything other than
S: Neither do I.
right motives? After all, weren’t The Beatles right
PP: You don’t?... – “All you need is love”? Love alone is enough,
Then what is it? isn’t it? And love is a motive.
S: I think it is an S: First of all, I don’t know why you bring up
insight into a real, insects – did you say “beetles”? – when we are
objective, universal discussing moral philosophy. But back to the
value: the value of tolerance. In reality, we cannot point: Is love only a motive? Is it not also a deed,
impose our values on others. When we try to do so, or action? And can you really separate its motives
it is counterproductive. Some cultures and some from its deeds? Can you hate, or rape, or
individuals simply fail to realize it. We make murder, or steal, or lie out of love?
mistakes in values, you know, just as we make
PP: No, not really.... And by the way, The Beatles
mistakes in anything else.
were a... well, never mind. I guess you missed the
PP: Yes, I realize that. Sixties, didn’t you? But no – hating and abusing
people and breaking trust is incompatible with love.
S: Well, if you admit that, you admit objectivity.
S: So do you see? The commandments which
PP: How?
specify good and evil acts are ways of specifying
S: Because a mistake means a failure to know the loving and unloving motives, too. Love does not
truth. Where there is no truth, there can be no error. steal, love does not kill, and so on.
PP: But we should be tolerant toward errors, not try PP: Well, love can certainly lead to adultery!
to impose the truth.
S: Not real love; not faithful love; not
S: Indeed. But notice what it is we tolerate: error – unadulterated love. I’m
not truth. Evil, not good. So you see, the very word afraid you’re confusing
“tolerance” presupposes real good and evil. love and lust.
PP: Socrates, you have tangled me up in my words PP: Well, but the motive is the primary thing,
again. How typically... umm... Socratic of you! Right?
S: Paula, you know better than that by now. You S: Yes, but the primacy
know the point of my method is not to win the of one thing doesn’t discount secondary things. The
argument, but to win the truth; not to defeat the soul is more important than the body, but that
opponent but to defeat the error. doesn’t mean the body isn’t also important.
But now, let’s look at your fifth argument. Could
PP: Yes, I understand that. I just don’t like to be
you summarize it briefly?
made a fool of.
SOCRATES MEETS JESUS • Dialogue 1: Socrates On Moral Relativism 8

IS MORALITY SITUATIONAL? S: Oh, all things are good, all right. But acts are not
things. We make acts – God makes things.
PP: Sure. I said that situations are relative, and
morality is determined by situations, so therefore PP: But how can an act be evil? It’s just a physical
morality is relative. event.
S: But that doesn’t prove your point. S: Is it? Don’t you think the act of murder is a
moral event?
PP: Sure it does.
PP: No. The moral event is inside me. What’s out
S: I thought you were supposed to be trying to
there is just the physical event. As a famous
prove that morality is subjective and relative?
philosopher once said, “There is nothing good or
PP: I am – at least I think I am. bad, but thinking makes it so.”
S: But situations are objectively real, aren’t they? S: I don’t believe you really believe that. Do you
So even if morality is determined by situations, it is think that if I murdered you and I didn’t think that it
still objective, is it not? was an evil deed, then it would not be an evil deed?
PP: But it’s still relative – right? PP: Not in your mind.
S: Only if it is wholly determined by situations. S: Would I be right or wrong in thinking that?
Once again, I think we need to distinguish
PP: I think you would be wrong, but you’d think
conditioning from determining. Do you think
you were right.
morality is wholly determined by situations, or only
that situations help determine morality? S: That is not what I asked. I asked which of these
two opinions, yours or mine, would be true.
PP: I don’t know. I never thought of it.
PP: Both.
S: Well, have you ever studied Thomas Aquinas’
moral philosophy? S: But these are contradictions. Contradictions
cannot both be true.
PP: No, we read mostly modern philosophers
here.... Well, actually, to be honest with you, we PP: Well, then neither.
read only modern philosophers.
S: But of two contradictories, one must be true and
S: I’m not surprised. That’s part of your problem. the other false.
PP: Well, what did Aquinas say about situations? PP: Not necessarily. What about paradoxes?
S: Something very reasonable, I think: that there are S: Paradoxes are only apparent contradictions.
three things that make a human act good or evil, not Clarify the issues and the contradiction is resolved.
just one: (1)the nature of the act itself; (2)the
PP: Well, what about mysteries, then?
motive behind the act; and (3)the situation or
circumstances involved. S: “Mysteries?” Do you mean the unknown?
PP: So, according to Aquinas, all three factors PP: Yeah.
have to line up for an act to be right?
S: How can something unknown be known to be
S: Correct. For instance, if I give money to the poor contradictory?
just to impress others, the act itself is good but my Paula, there is a mystical realm that transcends
motive is not, so it becomes a morally deficient act. human rationality, but it’s supra-rational, not
irrational. It merely belongs to another dimension
PP: But wait – I just don’t understand. How can a
that is above and beyond normal human reasoning.
thing be evil? You apparently believe in God.
Didn’t God make all things good? Is the maker of PP: All right, Socrates, I give up. I’m getting a
all things the maker of evil things? headache. I can’t refute your logic, but I still don’t
fully grasp the reality....