Few things could so starkly reveal the dark side of moral relativism as the atrocities being performed by Planned Parenthood. An organization that heretofore was known for being a nationwide abortion factory revealed itself to be something even worse: a retail outlet for merchandising the body parts of aborted babies. Anti-abortion advocates naively believed that the nefarious activities of Planned Parenthood couldn’t get any worse. After all, what could be worse than ripping innocent, fully-formed babies from the wombs of their mothers? We should have known better. It turned out that Planned Parenthood could, in fact, come up with something worse: selling off the body parts of aborted babies.

The atrocities being committed by Planned Parenthood illustrate in the starkest of terms why liberals find it necessary to subscribe to the philosophy of moral relativism. Any person who believes in absolute right and wrong could not justify abortion much less the selling of body parts. Only those who believe that right and wrong are relative terms and that each individual must decide what is right for him or herself could possible justify a practice that is reminiscent of the medical experiments of Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele performed at Hitler’s death camps in World War II.

Moral relativism is a fundamental tenet of the secular humanist’s worldview. It claims right and wrong are culturally-based and defined by the needs of man; thus they are subject to the determination of the individual. If man is god, as is the case with advocates of moral relativism, then man decides right and wrong. In layman’s terms, moral relativism means that there are no absolutes; individuals can decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong—both are relative concepts. This is a convenient concept for those who wish to be able to do anything they want without fear of reproach, but it quickly breaks down when what is “right” for one individual is wrong for another as in the case of aborting babies and selling their parts. The moral-relativist mother who does not want a baby might think it is “right” to abort it, but what about the baby? Who speaks for the unborn child who has no voice but is a human being with just as many rights as its mother?

Moral relativists tend to be secular humanists or atheists who believe in the evolutionary view that life on earth is the result of countless cosmic accidents. This being the case, life is accidental and therefore lacks any meaning more substantive than whatever makes a given individual happy in the moment. Consequently, anything the individual chooses to do is acceptable because in the long run it is not going to matter anyway. Abort a baby? No problem if it makes you happy in the moment? Sell off the baby’s body parts? Once again no problem if it makes the organization happy by creating a new income source.

From the convenient perspective of moral relativism, if something is right for me, it is right period, an enticing point of view for those who feel constrained by the Judeo-Christian ethic and do not want to think about the logical and practical consequences of their own beliefs. In adopting moral relativism as part of their worldview, secular humanists and atheists are applying a strategy that is as old as mankind itself: if the rules get in the way of what you want to do, make up new rules. That is all moral relativism amounts to: new rules made up by those who don’t want to follow the real rules laid down for all eternity in Holy Scripture.

Opinion polls show that Americans are tiring of moral relativism and the destructive effect it is having on society. Many Americans feel as if every time they pick up their morning newspaper or watch the nightly news they are confronted with ever-worsening examples of man’s inhumanity to man that are the result of a general degradation of society. School shootings, murders at work, road rage, abortion, rape, divorce, racial riots, looting, burning, children born to children, out-of-wedlock babies, X-rated television programs for children, single-parent families, gang violence, drugs, pornography, child abuse, abominable language, criminals running the prisons, failure of judges to punish law breakers, and the list goes on. These and other examples of the coarsening of American society are all the result of moral relativism.

The left likes to portray moral relativism as being a neutral concept, but in reality moral relativism is anything but neutral. On the contrary, it is hostile to morality and destructive to society. Obviously, the results of this abominable concept are anything but neutral—in fact, they are just the opposite. The on-going degradation of society from the effects of moral relativism disturbs and frightens many Americans, and the callous actions of Planned Parenthood just add to their concerns.

Moral relativism gives it proponents a basis for rationalizing doing whatever they want to do. It is the perfect philosophy for people who do not wish to have their behavior constrained or their lifestyle inhibited by inconvenient rules. This aspect of moral relativism is why in his book Be Intolerant Because Some Things Are Just Stupid Ryan Dobson calls moral relativism “sin in a toga.” By this he means that moral relativism is nothing more than “selfishness and hedonism and rebellion dressed up in philosopher’s robes.” Dobson says: “Moral relativism is not a philosophy you would arrive at by studying the world around you. If you put something under your microscope or do real science with your chemistry set or point your telescope at the stars, you will not arrive at the conclusion that there are no constants in the universe. The only way to come up with moral relativism is to begin with an agenda and then look for ways to make your agenda possible. Your starting point is not an observation of the universe, but an action you want to take.” This is an important point because one of the foundational tenets of secular humanism is empiricism: the belief that knowledge of the world is gained through observation, experimentation, and rational analysis as opposed to Biblical revelation. In reality, empiricism refutes moral relativism.

As can be seen from the nefarious actions of Planned Parenthood, moral relativism is a philosophy that deeply injures society. Moral relativism, far from leading to a “live-and-let-live” attitude in society, leads logically in one of two directions: 1) anarchic lawlessness, or 2) totalitarian tyranny. If moral relativism is true and there are no absolute principles which define right and wrong or good and evil, then there is nothing wrong with anyone doing whatever he feels like doing.

If moral relativism is true, then rape, child abuse, murder, and other heinous crimes are not wrong. If moral relativism is true, then justice is a myth and no law should restrain individual action or choices. This is the concept known as “anarchy.” If moral relativism is true, justice is a myth and there are no moral laws or principles to limit the action of rulers. Rulers are therefore free to use force and deceit to do whatever they want. This belief, of course, opens the door to tyranny and totalitarianism, which is precisely where America is headed if it fails to do what is necessary to challenge the activities of Planned Parenthood.

Secular humanism is the religion of the left. It has its own bible, the Humanist Manifesto, its own ethical construct, moral relativism, and its own god, man. This is not just a clever ruse on the part of Christians to render the anti-religion views of secular humanism null and void. The Humanist Manifesto makes clear that secular humanism is a religion developed specifically to replace those religions of the world that are based on supernatural revelation. The facts are clear. Secular humanists do not oppose religion, just the Christian religion. There is a name for this type of bias. It is called religious bigotry.