I had a conversation in the shop today that started the way many do now. I was told my moral position was “so yesterday.” Many people today ask, “are morals relative, or are there moral absolutes?” The assumption behind that question is clear: morals evolve, and if you’re not keeping up, you’re behind the times.
That statement sounds modern. It also hides an assumption worth examining.
Before arguing whether morals are relative or absolute, we have to agree on what we mean by morals in the first place.
Morals vs. Customs
Hanging a flag on July 4 or putting up a Christmas tree are customs and traditions. They express identity and belonging. No one calls you immoral for opting out.
Morals are different. When we say someone has “high morals” or “loose morals,” we are not talking about preferences or rituals. We are evaluating behavior against a standard. Morals judge actions. Customs describe habits.
That distinction matters.
The Things We All Know Are Wrong
Across cultures and across time, people recognize certain acts as wrong: murder, rape, assault, theft, betrayal. We may argue about edge cases—self-defense, war, punishment—but the core principle holds. Murder is wrong. Lying and stealing are wrong. Cheating on a spouse is wrong, even in societies that increasingly tolerate it.
Tolerance does not equal moral approval. Acceptance does not redefine right and wrong. It usually signals weakened enforcement.
How Do We Know?
That raises the real question: how do we know these things are wrong?
Not law—laws change.
Not culture—cultures excuse what benefits them.
Not survival alone—some acts that help survival are still condemned as evil.
What we observe instead is something innate. Humans experience guilt, empathy, and moral obligation early and universally. Psychology treats conscience as normal human equipment. The absence of guilt or empathy is classified not as a “different moral framework” or a lifestyle choice, but as a disorder.
Modern moral psychology supports this view of innate constants. Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory describes several universal psychological foundations—such as Care/Harm and Fairness/Cheating—that humans are prepared to recognize from early childhood. This helps explain why core wrongs like betrayal or needless harm trigger guilt across cultures, even as societies vary in emphasis.
That matters. We don’t diagnose people for rejecting customs. We diagnose people for lacking conscience.
Can Evolution Explain Morality?
Evolutionary theory can explain why we have moral feelings. It struggles to explain moral obligation.
Evolution explains what survives. Morality claims what ought to be done. These are different categories. If morality is only a survival adaptation, then moral beliefs are aimed at usefulness, not truth. That undercuts the very idea of justice, human rights, or evil.
Even scientists who appeal to evolution still speak in moral terms they cannot fully ground with evolution alone.
Boundaries, Not Arbitrary Rules
Some behaviors—nudity, vulgar language, sex in public—are often cited as evidence that morals are relative. But these are not moral absolutes in the same category as murder. They are boundary rules tied to consent and shared public space.
Every society regulates them. The specifics vary, but the principle does not: people should not be unwillingly pulled into intimate or degrading contexts. Cultures differ on where the line is drawn, not on whether a line exists.
The application of these boundaries varies, but the underlying value—respect for human dignity and consent—does not.
What Happens When Enforcement Weakens
At some point, societies stop enforcing boundaries. Inhibition is labeled repression. “If it feels good, do it” becomes the replacement rule.
Behavior changes first. Justification follows.
This is not moral evolution. It’s moral drift.
Here a useful analogy applies. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that systems tend toward disorder unless energy is continually applied to maintain order. In other words, things don’t stay good on their own—they go downhill unless someone puts in the work.
Calling restraint “outdated” doesn’t repeal consequences.
So Are Morals Relative or Absolute?
Using only logic, observation, and consistency, the answer becomes difficult to avoid.
Customs are relative.
Enforcement is relative.
Human obedience is inconsistent.
But moral standards themselves behave like constants—recognized, not invented.
Which leaves one final question.
If moral absolutes exist, why do they exist at all—and where did they come from?
That’s the next rabbit hole.
I’m Wayne—and that’s my world view. What’s yours?
