相对主义是自我摧毁的

核心论证 Core Argument

后现代主义的道德相对主义声称没有客观的善恶标准——一切都是文化建构、权力关系或个人选择。但这个立场在逻辑上是自我拆台的：说"没有客观真理"本身就是一个客观真理声称。如果道德真的是相对的，那么说"种族歧视是错误的"就只是一种文化偏好，而非客观事实。 文化相对主义面临"改革者困境"：如果道德由文化决定，那么任何挑战自己文化的改革者（如马丁·路德·金反对种族隔离）在定义上就是"不道德的"，因为他在违背文化共识。但我们直觉上知道有些文化实践（如奴隶制、种族灭绝）是客观错误的，不管多少人支持。 改革宗认识论提供了坚实的基础：上帝的本性是善的终极标准，上帝的启示（自然律和圣经）使人能认识客观道德。这不是武断的权威主义——上帝不是任意规定善恶，而是善恶根植于上帝不变的本性中。 值得注意的是，即使是最彻底的道德相对主义者在实际生活中也无法贯彻自己的理论。当他们的财物被偷、当有人在他们背后说谎、当他们遭受不公正对待时，他们立刻会诉诸客观道德标准——这恰恰说明道德相对主义在理论上可能有趣，但在人类实际道德体验中是站不住的。

Postmodern moral relativism claims no objective good or evil exists — everything is cultural construction, power relations, or personal choice. But this position is logically self-defeating: 'there is no objective truth' is itself an objective truth claim. If morality is truly relative, saying 'racism is wrong' is merely cultural preference, not objective fact. Cultural relativism faces the 'reformer's dilemma': if culture determines morality, any reformer challenging their own culture (like MLK opposing segregation) is by definition 'immoral' — violating cultural consensus. Yet we intuitively know some cultural practices (slavery, genocide) are objectively wrong regardless of how many people support them. Reformed epistemology provides a solid foundation: God's nature is the ultimate standard of good, and God's revelation (natural law and Scripture) enables moral knowledge. This isn't arbitrary authoritarianism — God doesn't randomly decree good and evil; rather, morality is grounded in God's unchanging nature. Notably, even the most thoroughgoing moral relativists cannot live by their theory. When their property is stolen, when someone lies about them, when they're treated unjustly, they immediately appeal to objective moral standards — showing moral relativism may be theoretically interesting but is unsustainable in actual moral experience.