How Buddhism Addresses Moral Relativism

In an era where moral certainty seems increasingly elusive, a compelling question emerges: Can ethical behavior truly flourish without divine commandment? This conversation between Buddhist wisdom holders and those who champion scripture-based morality reveals surprising common ground—and profound insights about human nature itself.

The Challenge: Does Morality Require Divine Authority?

"Without God, everything is permitted," wrote Dostoevsky—a sentiment that resonates deeply with many Americans who see moral relativism as civilization's greatest threat. As columnist Ben Shapiro frequently argues, "Facts don't care about your feelings, but facts require a foundation—and that foundation is divine truth." This perspective, shared across conservative media from The Federalist to Fox News, maintains that moral standards without scriptural grounding inevitably collapse into chaos.

The concern is understandable. If right and wrong are merely human constructs, what prevents society from sliding toward moral anarchy? As Jordan Peterson observes, "The fundamental assumption of Western civilization is that the individual has a divine spark that's worth respecting." Without this divine foundation, critics argue, we're left with nothing but shifting cultural preferences masquerading as ethics.

The Buddhist Response: Discovering Universal Principles

Yet Buddhist teachers offer a fascinating alternative that doesn't rely on relativism or divine command. The Dalai Lama, speaking to this exact concern, explains: "My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness." But this simplicity conceals profound sophistication.

Pema Chödrön illuminates the Buddhist position: "Compassion is not a relationship between the healer and the wounded. It's a relationship between equals. Only when we know our own darkness well can we be present with the darkness of others." Here we find not relativism, but recognition of universal human experiences—suffering, the desire for happiness, our fundamental interdependence.

Bhikkhu Bodhi, the renowned translator of Buddhist texts, addresses the scripture question directly: "The Buddha didn't ask people to believe in him. He said, 'Come and see. Test these teachings against your own experience.'" This empirical approach—what we might call moral science—doesn't reject absolute truths but discovers them through careful observation of cause and effect.

Finding Unexpected Allies

Interestingly, this resonates with thinkers beloved by conservative audiences. Thomas Jefferson, writing to his nephew, advised: "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion."

The Buddhist approach of testing moral principles against results mirrors the empirical conservatism of Edmund Burke, who warned against abstract theories divorced from human experience.

Even Ronald Reagan, defending his political philosophy, said: "The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom."

The New Testament conceptualizes freedom not as absence of constraint, but as liberation from sin and bondage to serve God and neighbor—a spiritual freedom found through surrender to divine will. For many readers of outlets like the Federalist, Breitbart, and Fox News, freedom often centers on protecting traditional values, economic liberty, and constitutional rights from what they see as progressive overreach, emphasizing both individual autonomy and cultural preservation.

Buddhist teacher Matthieu Ricard offers yet another perspective, defining true freedom as liberation from the mental afflictions and reactive patterns that bind us—not external political freedom, but the inner freedom that comes from understanding the nature of mind and cultivating wisdom and compassion.

Buddhism's emphasis on personal responsibility and the consequences of individual actions aligns remarkably with a conservative vision of freedom and autonomy.

The Practical Framework: Not Relative, But Responsive

Ajahn Amaro, addressing Western audiences, explains: "The precepts aren't commandments—they're training principles. They're like traffic laws: not arbitrary rules, but practical guidelines that prevent harm and create the conditions for flourishing."

This isn't moral relativism—it's moral intelligence. The Buddhist framework identifies universal human needs (freedom from suffering, the desire for genuine happiness) and develops practical methods for achieving them. As Thich Nhat Hanh teaches: "When you plant lettuce, if it does not grow well, you don't blame the lettuce. You look for reasons it is not doing well."

Addressing the Deeper Concern

Conservative critics might respond: "But without absolute authority, who determines what constitutes 'flourishing' or 'harm'? Won't this still lead to relativism?"

Buddhist teachers would gently redirect: "Look at the results. Does hatred lead to peace? Does greed create security? Does delusion produce wisdom?" The Buddha's approach was radically empirical—if a practice increases suffering for oneself or others, abandon it. If it reduces suffering and increases genuine wellbeing, cultivate it.

As the Dalai Lama notes: "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." This isn't relativism—it's the humility to let reality be the ultimate authority.

The Common Ground

Perhaps the most profound insight is that both traditions share core concerns: the dignity of human life, the importance of personal responsibility, and the recognition that actions have consequences.

As William F. Buckley Jr. once observed: "The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please, as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."

Buddhism would add: and as long as they don't hurt themselves through ignorance of their own deepest needs for connection, meaning, and peace.

Moving Forward Together

The conversation need not end in opposition. Both perspectives recognize that human beings require moral frameworks to flourish. The question isn't whether we need ethical guidelines—we clearly do. The question is how we discover and implement them most effectively.

Buddhist wisdom suggests that the most reliable moral authority isn't external command but cultivated wisdom—the careful observation of what actually creates the conditions for human flourishing. This approach doesn't threaten traditional values; it offers a method for discovering why those values emerged and evolved.

As Pema Chödrön reminds us: "You are the sky, everything else is just weather." Whether guided by scripture or contemplative practice, we're all seeking the same clear sky of genuine peace, justice, and human dignity.