Looking through the humanistic perspective lens, ethics can be defined as mankind perpetually developing an array of processes which occurs through growth and maturation via self reasoning.  As Christians, we know that God’s ethics are steadfast because He is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.  Revelation 1:8 (the King James Version) states, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty”(Holy Bible ).  We as humans can never see the entire picture because God is greater.  God does not abide by the human framework of time, because He is our Creator. He created us with free will after His own image, and He defined and established ethics.  This is best exhibited in the book of Genesis when the Almighty God gave instructions to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  They were to follow His direction with faithful obedience.  Today, we are to follow His direction with faithful obedience from His Word, the Holy Bible.  With this in mind, ethical relativisms come into play in the Garden of Eden (in Genesis 2–3) when the serpent entices Eve to eat the forbidden fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  

     To begin with, in Moral Reasoning: An Intentional Approach to Distinguishing Right from Wrong, Michael S. Jones states,“Ethical relativisms come in various forms, but the common thread that binds them together is the idea that what is actually right and wrong can vary from one person or group of people to another” (Jones 14).  To put it differently, ethical relativisms are a plethora of instilled values which can create conflict or mutual respect within the pluralistic society of the world we all live in.  Furthermore, in order to fully understand one’s ethics, we need to immerse ourselves into their confrontation with reality with the intent to circumvent presentism and utilize reflexivity to enable impartial analysis of their ethical relativism.  

     Moving forward, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines Schrödinger’s equation as “an equation that describes the wave nature of elementary particles and is fundamental to the description of the properties of all matter”(The Merriam-Webster Dictionary).  Since all matter within our universe is created from God, there is adamant substance in the reasoning that ethical relativism is an element derived from His creation because we are all part of the same quantum field which is the universe.  With this in mind, a sound contention can be made that ethical relativism directly coincides with God’s gift of free will to mankind.  Now let us return to Genesis chapters two and three to examine the evidence.  

     Satan, only had to tempt Adam and Eve to live independently from God by enticing their God given free will to eat the forbidden fruit.  Once Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit we learn that they hid themselves.  God still appeared in the Garden of Eden to walk with them as He had previously even knowing that Adam and Eve had sinned.  This is very important because it establishes the steadfast ethics of God.  All of sudden once sin had entered into the equation we see ethical relativism appear before our very eyes.  Genesis 3:10-14 (the King James Version) states, “And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.  And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?  And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.  And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.   And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:”(Holy Bible ). As we can see, Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the serpent because after sinning ethical relativism establishes a humanistic approach to ethics where each individual had their own values of what was right and wrong.  In other words, each member’s ethics now differed collectively as a group/society.  Mutual respect was violated and conflict was created which divided God’s ethics into humanistic ethical relativism.  

     Ultimately, we see humanistic ethical relativism creating conflict throughout world history.  In an attempt to establish a supporting example for cultural relativism within ethics Michael S. Jones states, “For example, a cultural relativist might point out that for most of the known history of the human race owning slaves was not considered immoral, but today slavery is widely considered immoral.  She would then argue that contemporary culture has developed a moral value that was absent in earlier cultures: human freedom.  Once again the relativist has hit on some truth”(Jones 20).  It is this writer’s opinion that anything that contains partial truth is not truth.  It is blasphemous to examine history through the lens of presentism because we would be conflating elements to twist the actual truth.  We would then be examining some truth which is arguably false.  In the argument against relativism Michael S. Jones states, “If the relativist takes the broadest view possible (the social group is the whole human race), then even if moral values are social constructs, they are constructs of the whole human race and therefore are binding on everyone. That is as much a version of absolutism as it is relativism, and it’s not what relativists are arguing for anyway”(Jones).  A cogent argument can be made that this is a humanistic approach to ethical relativism.  Interestingly enough, the French thinker Jacques Derrida took the humanistic approach of deconstructionism, and published numerous works surrounding this philosophy.  “Third, if the origin is always heterogeneous, then nothing is ever given as such in certainty. Whatever is given is given as other than itself, as already past or as still to come. What becomes foundational therefore in Derrida is this “as”: origin as the heterogeneous “as.” The “as” means that there is no knowledge as such, there is no truth as such, there is no perception as such. Faith, perjury, and language are already there in the origin”(Lawlor). To clarify, Derrida is claiming that since everything is already in existence that there is no need for truth.  Humanism is the belief that mankind can better themselves by their own accord.  Essentially, there is no truth.  The Holy Bible in John 14:6 (of the King James Version) states, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”(Holy Bible ). Jesus is truth and the only truth.  

     In brief, ethical relativism does exist within the humanistic perspective through sin which violates mutual respect with God.  In similar fashion, ethical relativism can exist through the Christian perspective to a degree through the various spiritual gifts from God through the Holy Spirit, but sin will continue to tarnish the absolute truth of God.  I Corinthians 12:4-6 (the King James Version) states, “Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.  And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.  And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all”(Holy Bible ).  To enumerate, God sent Jesus to die on the cross for the sins of mankind which begins to replace the ethical relativism created by the fall of man in Genesis 2–3.  Once Jesus returned to Heaven, He sent us His Holy Spirit to guide us and to reestablish His ethical Kingdom which will not be entirely fulfilled until His glorious return.   Until then, the Christian and secular forces of ethical relativism will roam across the universe constantly challenging mutual respect.  

Works Cited

Holy Bible . Thomas Nelson Publishers , 1997.

Jones, Michael S. Moral Reasoning: An Intentional Approach to Distinguisihing Right from Wrong . Dubuque,IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Co., 2017. 03 September 2018.

Lawlor, Leonard. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy-Jacques Derrida. 16 April 2018. 03 September 2018. <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/>.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 03 September 2018. 03 Septmeber 2018. <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Schr%C3%B6dinger%20equation>.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary . Springfield,MA: Merriam-Webster Inc., 2004.