Is Morality Relative?

 Below is a response to one of my students concerning moral relativity vs moral absolutes:



If a standard- Objective truth: then important things are not subject to mans interpretation and opinion.
If no standard- subjective preference: everything is dependent upon individual opinion and preference in the moment.

If we have objective truth then it does not matter what laws man makes or what feelings an individual has, the truth is always true.  For example, pedophilia is wrong!  If that is only my opinion then we are not certain it is wrong just because many agree; there are those who would disagree.  If that is only an opinion then it is subjective  and neither opinion is wrong and neither opinion is right.  I personally do not believe this is an opinion, I believe in a standard of truth that is not subject to mans opinions.

Here is a logical reason why I believe there is a standard.  Every human needs oxygen to stay alive.  This is not a subjective opinion, but an absolute standard fact.  I think it is logical that there is also a standard; a set of laws for man to discover in the metaphysical (supernatural) world similar to the laws man has been discovering in the physical world.  In the physical world man has discovered the laws of gravity, motion, physics, thermodynamics etc... etc... etc...  Man did not make these laws, but discovered them.  It seems logical to assume that the metaphysical world would also have laws and man must discover them.

These metaphysical laws would logically be established by one whom we call God.  So it is not a question of God, but which god.  Did God leave a trail, a Holy Book, something for man to discover what his created purpose is and what his relationship ought to be with his creator?

What do you think?