My wife was raised in Ohio. I love her, but it’s true. I do have a disclaimer though, she was born in Tennessee and she moved back to Virginia when she was about 13. She is the love of my life, no kidding. Although she married this good ole boy, she does have a few leftover “things” from her time spent in the Buckeye state we have to deal with. One of them came up in conversation tonight after supper. She mentioned how she had come upon some “good, store-bought tea” today and it reminded her of some “good”, name brand, instant tea. About the time she said that, my son, who is much like me, looked at me, smiled, and rolled his eyes while saying, “good store bought tea, right.” Of course, if you’re reading this blog, you probably don’t have to be told that the words good and instant tea are oxymorons. Now, I realize that all ya’ll ain’t from down here, but home brewed, sweet tea is a Southern thing. We just won’t hear of it any other way. In fact, we deny that any such thing even exists.
There are those who claim there is no God, who also deny that there is such a thing as transcendent (all people, all places, all times) morality. They know that if they admit that there are those acts like, torturing innocent babies for fun, which are always wrong no matter who, where, or when you are, then they’ll have to admit that there is a God. They know the syllogism all to well: If transcendent moral law exists there is a transcendent moral law giver (God); transcendent moral law exists; therefore, God exists. To get around this, they claim that all morality is relative to all people, all places, and all times. This is a simplified way of defining relative morality. In my opinion, the simpler is the better. It seems to reveal the truth more clearly.
The one thing a materialist love (almost all relativists are materialists) is their material. If you want to drive your point home about objective morality, simply take what they love. Whether it be their wallet, jewelry, car, or coffee, just walk off with it. I promise that they will instantly become an objective moralist and display their disgust with the objective wrong you have committed against them.
Now, I do not suggest that you actually do this. The “relativist” will likely display such an objective disagreement with your act, that you may end up in jail or physically wounded. In that case, your illustration would destroy your point. I only wanted to illustrate my own point. There is no such thing as a moral relativist, not actually. Just like the fact that there is no such thing as “good, instant tea”. It just ain’t so.
SECOND DISCLAIMER: I fully understand that there are those who believe that other forms of tea are better than southern style, sweet, iced tea. Although I do not admit that there is any objective truth to their claims, I do admit that this poses a problem for my analogy. It seems some might claim that this proves that morality is merely a matter of taste or context. In that case, use the illustration outlined above.