With philosophical giants like Machiavelli suggesting that the "ends justify the means," it's easy to understand how we've evolved into a modern-day culture which largely accepts the idea that morality is relative. We subscribe to an idea called "cultural ethical relativism," which suggests that one's culture determines one's reality, ethics, and behavior.

We cherry pick what we think is right, versus what we think is wrong, and the standard never maintains a consistent nature. We are swift to condemn those who disagree, forcing them to abide by the standards of our culture and bitterly angry when they choose their own.

The problems we have in society largely exist, not because of differing opinions, but because of differing moralities. We insist upon a toxic method of relativism that not only drives a wedge between us but makes it impossible for us to ascertain justice.

We're slow to determine objective morality, however, because an objective morality means that we can't behave the way we want to. Objective morality means nobody really wins in the end because everyone is held to a standard they have no desire to be held to. Even within cultures, we seek a relative morality.

I recognize that, as humans, we are innately diverse and unique. Our set of morals, however, was intended to be the same. Through thousands of years of cultural deviation, we have grown into a kaleidoscope society with thousands of different moral codes. It is nearly impossible to return to one objective standard, but we must insist upon it in some capacity.

Why?

It's the only way we'll survive, that's why.

Let's pretend I'm a fully grown man, who has a desire to be sexually intimate with a nine-year-old boy. While we currently maintain that this is pedophilia and we consider it unwelcome, relative morality suggests that I, by my own standards, am not corrupt in my desires. Relative morality demands that I be acknowledged in whichever beliefs I desire and that I not be held accountable to a set standard of rules.

That's kind of an extreme example, to be fair. Let's make it tamer.

Let's pretend I'm a pregnant woman who wants to end my pregnancy in the third trimester. Some states in the USA currently legalize late-term abortion, which allows for pregnancies to be terminated as late as the third trimester.

I just went there, and for those of you who support late-term abortion, I know I already lost you. Bear with me for a second, though. Just because I believe in objective morality doesn't mean we're ever going to get there, so you'll probably always be allowed to maintain and practice your beliefs on abortion.

According to my subjective reality, you have absolutely no right to insist upon me having my child — even though, at this point, that child is nearing (or has reached) full development and can live outside of my body.

Even though, at this point, my body is just a holding cell for a fully developed baby.

My body and everything in it is mine, as is my soul, and my subjective reality applies to me, and me alone. It doesn't apply to you. You cannot infringe upon my reality.

Fine. Whatever. Many readers are probably arguing at this very moment, "what does it matter? Why do you have any right to tell someone how to live?"

I don't. But we as a people have a right to enforce an objective moral code that demands a certain standard of behavior because of something called the slippery slope—which, whether or not you choose to acknowledge it from a philosophical perspective, is a very real problem.

I don't believe I have a right to tell anyone how to live until their subjective morality infringes upon someone else's autonomy.

Here's where it gets messy.

Let's pretend my culture says that I can kill my five-year-old child who has special needs. My brand of relativism insists that this child has no value in the world, and cannot contribute to society adequately enough to deserve existence.

Let's pretend my culture says that I can kill my 80-year-old grandmother, who lives on a tank of oxygen and needs to be spoon-fed, diaper changed and given 24-hour attentive care. My culture says that she has no value because she can no longer contribute to society adequately enough to deserve existence.

Let's pretend my culture says that I can marry a 12-year-old girl as a 40-year-old man because I have the financial means necessary to afford and provide for a child bride, and because I am sexually attracted to young girls despite my age.

Enough.

We must demand an ethical structure that is objective. If we do not, we are doomed—for the slope only becomes slipperier.

We cannot afford to give up objectivity simply because we want to do what we want to do—because we don't want to go through childbirth, or because we don't want to have a job. Because we don't want to be inconvenienced. Because we are offended.

When you begin to demand that lives are risked for the sake of your reality, when you begin to demand that the autonomy of others is silenced in an attempt to accommodate you, that's when we have a problem. Morality is not relative; at least, not as it applies to the masses. Relativism should only be considered in our personal lives and beliefs. Relativism should never, ever jeopardize the autonomy of another human being.

Machiavelli inspired the argument that the ends justify the means — so if the end result is something that is good, the means of getting there, however brutal they may be, are justifiable. Unfortunately, as a result of this argument, our culture often looks to an end that benefits one party, and has no issue with the means of getting there, even if multiple parties are harmed in the process.

Relativism is a slippery slope and a dangerous way of living. Morality is objective.

But I guess until we determine where that objective moral standard is sourced from, morality will always be relative in the end. So maybe there is no winning, after all.