Is morality absolute or is it relative?

Atheists claim that morals are relative because what is morally right for one person may be morally wrong for another, and each individual is his or her own sole arbiter of moral right and wrong. Indeed, atheism is tied to moral relativism: since atheists do not believe in God—the source of objective morality—they must adhere to relativism as their only logically coherent answer to the question of how morals are determined. In other words, from an atheistic perspective, we inhabit an absurdly relativistic world, and therefore morals must be relative. In stark contrast, objective morality means that there are moral truths that exist independently of anyone’s preferences, beliefs, or opinions—a universal moral order. That is, there is a code of right and wrong that unites all of humanity and necessarily entails the existence of God. As any reasonable observer can see, moral relativism is a self-defeating contradiction: it denies any universal morality while asserting that right and wrong depend on the individual or culture. Moral relativists often condemn belief in universal moral standards as “cultural imperialism,” implying that the latter is bad; yet if morality is relative, then so is the judgment that cultural imperialism is reprehensible. Thus, atheist relativists undermine their own position when they claim that morals are relative. Their claim undercuts any shubhah (specious argument) they might raise against religion from the outset, for how can they criticize any religious matter while insisting that moral rightness and wrongness exist only in the eye of the beholder? Atheists contradict themselves, for if morals are relative and there are no universal standards, then what they deem morally wrong may be morally right for believers. After all, is their slogan not that “what is true or right for one person may not be true or right for another”? Hence, if atheists wish to avoid the contradictions and counterintuitive implications of ethical relativism, their best option is to embrace theism.

No doubt, problems arise from the theory of ethical relativism—the currently predominant moral theory in the West—when we try to address any crime. The Nazi atrocities illustrate the inevitable conflict between clashing ethical frameworks: the victims viewed these acts as morally reprehensible, and today virtually everyone condemns what the Nazis did, yet the Nazis themselves believed they were acting rightly and that their policies were justified according to their own moral framework. The mere existence of different ethical frameworks does not imply that all frameworks are equally valid. Not all ethical frameworks can be correct, because if they were, such extreme conflicts would not arise. This points to the necessity of objective moral truths, for which God provides the most coherent explanation. Consider this argument: atheists criticize Islam as inherently violent, a criticism that assumes violence is morally wrong—that it represents a departure from the way things ought to be. If violence is a departure from the way things ought to be, then there exists a way things ought to be; if there is a way things ought to be, then there is a design plan—that is, a set of objective moral truths distinguishing what is morally right (the way things ought to be) from what is morally wrong (the way things ought not to be); and if there is a design plan, then there must be a designer. This designer theists call God. Obviously, this argument does not prove that God possesses all the attributes ascribed to Him by theists, such as omnipotence or omniscience. Nonetheless, since there can be no coherent design plan for how things ought to be based solely on how things happen to be, there must be an author behind such a plan. This author must be a sentient being, because a plan requires intention and understanding. It certainly cannot be any one of us humans, since we are part of the system and cannot establish objective moral truths that stand above our own perspectives. Therefore, it must be God.

In fact, moral relativism is not merely an inaccurate theory about morality; rather, it poses a serious threat to societies because it implies the pernicious consequence that “anything goes.” In other words, it leads to moral paralysis and indifference. As stated earlier, if moral relativism were true, Hitler’s genocidal actions would count as right from his perspective, and no one could meaningfully condemn them. That is, if there are no universally valid moral principles, then no one could be prosecuted for any crime, because no matter how offensive an action—murder, rape, child abuse, racism, or anything else—may be to one person’s moral intuition, that same action could be perfectly consistent with the perpetrator’s personal understanding of what is right. Put differently, what one individual regards as a heinous crime may be, in someone else’s view, the very essence of moral goodness. Thus, moral relativism renders constitutions and judiciary systems pointless. It erodes virtue, excellence, peace, order, and justice. It destroys the conscience and produces people without scruples. In a word, it casts society—and everyone within it—into chaos. Funnily enough, moral relativists cannot rationally object to any crime as morally wrong; their position forces them to tolerate all actions, no matter how harmful. Yet moral relativism is not genuinely tolerant, for the principle of tolerance makes sense only in a world where moral absolutes exist—specifically, where one absolute moral standard is that people should respect the right of others to differ in conduct or opinion. In other words, tolerance is at home only within moral absolutism; it becomes irrational within any relativistic framework. Practically speaking, moral relativism is unliveable. If ethical relativism were true, what kind of world would we inhabit? It would be a world in which nothing is wrong, nothing is evil, and nothing is worthy of blame. It would be a world in which justice and fairness are meaningless concepts—a world without accountability, without the possibility of moral improvement, and without genuine moral discourse. To envision such a world, one need only consider The Purge—an American media franchise consisting of a compilation of dystopian action-horror films that imagine a world in which all crime is temporarily legal. In the fictional world of the Purge films, the New Founding Fathers of America—a totalitarian party presenting themselves as successors to the United States’ Founding Fathers—are elected after an economic collapse and pass the 28th Amendment, creating an annual 12-hour national event called The Purge, during which all crime is legal and police, fire, and medical emergency services are suspended. The first Purge occurs in 2017, lasting from 7 p.m. on March 21 to 7 a.m. on March 22. While purely fictional, the Purge films explore serious themes, including the consequences of moral relativism and societal breakdown. They examine human nature and behavior under extreme conditions, highlighting how fear, power, and self-interest can erode ethics, justice, and social order. Moral relativism, when taken seriously, produces precisely this kind of world—a world in which all crime is legal. Hence, it is not merely a bad idea but the mother lode of bad ideas.

It is one of Allāh’s graces that there exists an innate human consensus on the necessity of punishing offenders. This consensus reflects an intuition that stands in stark contrast to the essence of atheism and arises from two axiomatic facts: that morals are absolute and that human beings are morally accountable for their actions. Laws, judicial systems, constitutions, and states as a whole are grounded in these two axiomatic facts, and merely questioning them would topple nations and imperil humanity. Again, if morals were relative, people across history would not have unanimously affirmed the need to punish criminals, and the very notion of criminal punishment would lose its meaning. Indeed, if one wished to bring down a state, it could be done in merely two hours. All that is required is to gather a group of atheists and allow them the ethical relativism their worldview permits. Within the first hour they would take to the streets in chaos, and before the second hour is over everything would collapse. In truth, atheists survive only by relying on the remnants of Prophethood and the remnants of fiṭrah (humanity’s inborn moral compass). That is, they appropriate their moral values from the theistic cultures in which they live, and rarely do they possess a strictly atheistic moral system. Put succinctly, atheism leads to moral relativism, or rather atheists are compelled to adopt the view that morals are relative in order to sustain their claim that God does not exist, nothing more. They cannot escape the net of ethical relativism, for to affirm the existence of objective moral values is to affirm the existence of God. Moral experience is meaningless without an objective moral order, and an objective moral order is meaningless without God. Indeed, moral relativism is bankrupt, self-refuting, and renders morality unintelligible. It is also hypocritical, self-centered, and egoistic, for relativists consider it acceptable to “do their own thing,” yet they do not extend the same freedom to others and expect others to follow conventional moral rules when dealing with them. In short, ethical relativism inevitably leads to the dismantling of the very concept of morality, and the thin veneer of civilized ethics that Western atheistic societies still maintain persists only as a residual legacy of a Christian civilization—an inheritance that may be entirely lost without due care.

But why do we assert that morals are absolute and thus fixed, regardless of time and place? It is because morals are objective, not subjective. The distinction between objective and subjective mirrors the difference between facts and opinions. The term “objective” refers to information grounded in verifiable facts—truths that a third party can confirm, regardless of who they are. For instance, the statement “The temperature outside is around 20°C” is objective because it remains true no matter who reports it, and anyone with a functioning thermometer could verify it. Conversely, the term “subjective” describes information based on personal opinion or interpretation. Subjective truths may differ from person to person, shaped by individual tastes, preferences, or experiences. For example, “It is very cold outside” is subjective, since someone from Florida may find the temperature freezing, while someone from Alaska may find it comfortably warm. By extension, objective morality means that moral truths are universal and not open to personal interpretation—they exist independently of individual perspectives. The moral rightness or wrongness of an action does not depend on personal tastes, feelings, or opinions, and thus cannot vary across people or societies. In other words, some actions are objectively right and others objectively wrong; what is good is consistently good for all, and what is evil is consistently evil for all, because morals are not human-made but originate from a source beyond humanity. For a moral system to be truly objective, its laws must stem from a source external to humanity; otherwise, we are left with mere human opinion, no matter how it is presented. Indeed, God provides the foundation for objective morality, as He exists independently of the universe and transcends human subjectivity. This has particularly profound implications, given that most atheists live and act as if they adhere to an objective moral system, even though their worldview makes such a system logically impossible. Reflecting on objective morality compels one to examine the rationale behind daily actions and moral choices. The conclusion is clear to anyone who reasons impartially: without a divine lawgiver, moral choices and actions are ultimately subjective and meaningless, leaving only two possibilities—God or nihilism.

C. S. Lewis, who extensively explored the objective nature of morality and had a remarkable ability to communicate and defend this concept clearly and compellingly, presented eight arguments in favor of objective morality:¹

1. Quarreling between two or more individuals: When people quarrel, they implicitly assume the existence of an objective standard of right and wrong that each person recognizes and that one party has violated. If no such standard existed, why would they quarrel at all? By definition, quarreling involves attempting to show another person that they are in the wrong. As C. S. Lewis noted, there is no purpose in doing this unless there is some shared understanding of what is right and wrong—just as it would make no sense to claim a football player committed a foul if there were no agreed-upon rules of the game.²

2. It is obvious that an objective moral standard exists: The overwhelming obviousness that certain acts are clearly right or wrong indicates the existence of an objective moral standard. As Lewis pointed out, throughout history, mankind has generally agreed that “the human idea of decent behavior [is] obvious to everyone.”³ In the appendix of his The Abolition of Man, Lewis provided a list illustrating the points of agreement among various civilizations throughout history.⁴ For example, it is obvious (or self-evident) that genocide is morally reprehensible. Even young children recognize that certain actions are obviously right or wrong. While watching a show like PJ Masks, for instance, children can easily identify the good characters as well as the bad ones, even without guidance.⁵ Hence, it is obvious that an objective moral standard exists.

3. Reaction to mistreatment: Another reason to believe in the existence of an objective moral standard is that even those who claim not to believe in objective morality will react as if such a standard exists the moment they are mistreated. Lewis wrote:⁶

Hence, people may deny the existence of an objective standard of behavior in words or actions, yet their reactions when mistreated consistently reveal what they truly believe. This exposes a fundamental flaw in moral relativism.

4.Measuring value systems: When someone claims that one value system is superior to another, or seeks to replace a particular system with a better one, they implicitly assume the existence of an objective standard of judgment. This standard, independent of either value system, allows one to determine which system aligns more closely with moral truth. For example, without some objective measure, it would be impossible to conclude that civilized morality—where humans treat one another with dignity and respect—is preferable to savage morality, in which humans may brutally murder others, even within their own tribe, for various reasons.⁷ Lewis illustrated this point, observing:⁸

In the same vein, if no objective moral standard exists, it makes no sense to claim that any value system has ever been morally good or bad, or morally superior or inferior to others.

5.Attempts to improve morally: The fact that countless individuals strive to improve themselves morally provides evidence that an absolute standard of good exists; without such a standard, talk of moral improvement would be meaningless, and genuine moral progress would be impossible.⁹ Indeed, no sane person wakes up and declares that their goal is to become more immoral. Even if someone did aim to become more immoral, they would still require an objective standard to gauge the extent of their immorality. In simple terms, without an ultimate standard of right and wrong, people could change their personal ethics or actions, but they could never truly improve their morality. Yet the very possibility of moral improvement indicates that an absolute standard of good must exist—one that stands above and beyond the process of improvement. In other words, there must be a target for individuals to direct their moral efforts toward, and a measure by which to assess moral progress. As Lewis put it, if no objective moral standard of behavior exists, then,¹⁰

In short, relativists may change their personal ethics, but they can never truly become better people, as there is no objective standard against which to improve. Yet the very concept of moral improvement is meaningful, which demonstrates that relativism is false.

6.Reasoning over moral issues: When people reason about moral matters, they implicitly assume the existence of an objective standard of right and wrong.¹¹ Without such a standard, moral reasoning would be no different from arguing with friends about the best pizza topping—“I prefer this” and “I don’t like that.” Relativists cannot engage in meaningful moral discussions, for if all morals are relative and all views are equal, no way of thinking is better than another. Under relativism, it becomes impossible to judge any moral position as adequate or deficient, reasonable or unreasonable, acceptable or barbaric. In short, meaningful conversations about issues such as adultery, abortion, drugs, or bullying cannot exist in a world where morality is merely a matter of personal preference. Ethical disputes only make sense when morals are objective. Consequently, relativism can consistently be lived out only in silence, which is why it is rare to encounter a rational and consistent relativist. Most are quick to impose their own moral rules, such as “It is wrong to push your morality onto others.” This places relativists in an untenable position: if they speak out on moral issues, they surrender their relativism; if they remain silent, they surrender their humanity. In sum, the very notion of moral discourse is intuitively meaningful, which demonstrates that moral relativism is false.

7.Feeling a sense of obligation over moral matters: All humans experience an undeniable sense of moral obligation.¹² The terms “ought” and “ought not” presuppose the existence of an objective moral law that humanity recognizes and feels compelled to follow. Virtually everyone would agree that one ought to attempt to save a drowning child and ought not to kill innocent people. It is also entirely coherent to hold that humans are morally obligated to cultivate or possess virtues such as generosity, compassion, and courage.¹³

8.Making excuses for not behaving appropriately: This is another reason to believe that morality is objective.¹⁴ If an individual does not believe in an objective standard of behavior, then why should they feel anxious about making excuses for how they behaved in a given circumstance? Why not simply move on without attempting to justify their actions? After all, no one needs to defend themselves if there is no standard they could fall short of or violate. Lewis maintained:¹⁵

The above eight reasons do not exhaust all the reasons for believing in objective morality, but they nonetheless serve as an important starting point. If any one of them is valid, then the moral argument for God’s existence (and thus for theism/Islam) gains sufficient grounding, for if there are good reasons to affirm an objective moral standard, then God becomes the best possible explanation for it. Such a standard, at the very least, requires a transcendent, good, and personal source—which aligns closely with the God of theism.

To reiterate, the majority of people live as if an objective moral system exists, yet without God, no such system can truly exist. More specifically, when moral disagreement arises, people appeal to some standard of behavior that they expect others to recognize, but according to the mores of modern Western atheistic societies, there is no God to provide such a standard. Rationally, if this is the case, the standard itself must collapse. However, objective moral truths exist that are not subject to personal preferences or the transient values of society. Indeed, these truths have a single source across all humans and all time—they originate in divine will. That is, a thing is good because God wills and affirms its goodness, and an action is right when it conforms to God’s moral standard. In other words, the morally right is whatever God commands. Consequently, there exists an objective measure of our actions and a genuine accountability for our conduct. In short, God is the sole author of morality. He created us, has authority over us, and therefore has the right to hold us accountable to His moral standard. We inherently know His ultimate standard of right and wrong because He has written His Law on our hearts—al-fiṭrah (an internal compass that points toward good deeds, drawing us closer to Him). Thus, universal moral values are shared by all humans, for God’s moral standard flows from His unchanging nature and is therefore absolute. All people are guided—whether consciously or unconsciously—by values. Put differently, these values, our deeply held convictions about what is right and good, shape our behavior even when we are unaware of their influence. Moreover, no one can deny the innate sense of being divinely assigned and morally accountable, a reality that forms part of the human moral condition. All of us recognize, consciously or not, that we are accountable before Allāh for our actions; even those who indulge in every immoral act still know what is right and wrong, though they may choose to disregard it.

It is self-evident that absolute moral principles are unchanging and universal. That is, what is moral does not change or evolve over time. In other words, there is no such thing as moral progress, for everything is inherently right or wrong, and no context or outcome can alter this. For example, throughout human history, honesty has been morally right and lying morally wrong. Likewise, war has consistently been regarded as an evil. This is why modern productions—even those in the twentieth century—of The Trojan Women, a play written by the great Athenian dramatist Euripides for a society long ago (415 BC) and filled with references to fifth-century Athenian events, continue to move audiences with the same pity and horror that war evokes. Euripides addressed the concerns of his own time and society, yet the tragedy of war is universal, and so too are anti-war sentiments. This play has been performed for over a thousand years; since its creation, it has been revived and reinterpreted numerous times, often as a means of protesting the brutality of war and mourning destroyed homelands. Jean-Paul Sartre—a French philosopher, playwright, and political activist—staged a version in 1965 that focused on the Indochina wars, portraying French colonialists as the inglorious Greeks and the Vietnamese as the unfortunate Trojans. More recently, in Scotland, the Trojan Women’s Project, a theatre initiative that works with refugees, staged the play with a cast of Syrian war refugees, emphasizing the ongoing crisis and the plight of those forced to flee.¹⁶ Other notable adaptations include productions performed in honor of the victims of the Holocaust and those affected by the conquest of the Owu Kingdom in West Africa. Indeed, Astyanax and Andromache in Euripides’s play represent the helpless child and the grieving mother of every war since Euripides penned The Trojan Women in 415 BC, in the midst of the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC). The Trojan women embody all the widows, mothers, brides-to-be, sisters, and daughters who come to bear the heavy burden of war and its aftermath—especially, though not exclusively, on the defeated side. Because war remains a tragedy of society, this Euripidean drama has been repeatedly used as a weapon of protest against the waging of war, as one can identify counterparts of the Trojan War in virtually any war across time. Its central figures have come to symbolize the perennial maladies of war, making the play a timeless mirror of the bereavement, displacement, loss, and injustice that accompany every war. The bottom line is that morality in fifth-century Athens was fundamentally no different from morality in the twentieth century—moral values are objective and enduring. In other words, there exists a universal and imperishable moral law—given by God to all humanity—that is unchangeable and binding upon all peoples at all times.In his dialogue De Legibus (On the Laws, 52 B.C.), Roman orator and philosopher Cicero spoke of a supreme law that had existed through all ages—long before any written statute or organized state—and described it as the law of nature and the source of right: universally applicable moral standards that bind everyone at all times and stand above human legislation. In his De Republica (The Republic, 51 B.C.), he further affirmed that there exists a true, universal, unchangeable, and eternal law of which God is the author, promulgator, and enforcer—a law that cannot be repealed or superseded, whose commands call us to duty and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil, and one that needs no other expositor or interpreter than our own conscience.¹⁷

Cicero warned that it is never morally right for humans to enact laws that violate the natural law, whose source is God, and which serves as the ultimate guide to right and wrong in human affairs. Once again, there is no such thing as moral progress; rather, morals are fixed and transcend time and place. This is why Muslims today remain keen to follow the morals of the Righteous Predecessors (the first three generations of Muslims—the Companions, the Successors, and the Successors of the Successors) who lived hundreds of years ago—their virtues endure precisely because moral truth does not change.

In a nutshell, atheism leads to moral relativism (the belief that morality varies between cultures or individuals), nihilism (the denial of inherent meaning or value), and subjectivism (the view that moral judgments are based on personal feelings). Yet even atheists, like all of us, act as if some actions are undeniably wrong and certain judgments about others’ conduct are justified, exposing the self-contradiction of their worldview and demonstrating the falsity of relativism. Indeed, the only reason atheists can make ethical claims or critique religious morality is because morals are absolute and immutable, yet in doing so they contradict themselves. On the one hand, they deny the existence of moral universals—norms or values endorsed by every human culture—and claim that morality is merely a matter of opinion, varying from culture to culture. On the other hand, they pass judgment on religious moral codes. If human judgments are merely the product of enculturation, then they have no grounds to evaluate any other moral code. In short, moral relativism is self-contradictory and therefore false, for in asserting its truth, its proponents simultaneously deny the truth of their own assertion.