Relativism is the concept that there are no absolutes for truth or validity. It is only from relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration that we have conclusions. Would you like to live this way?
Really? I have some questions.
What could be better than doing whatever you want? If it feels right, do it, right?
What could be worse than letting someone tell you what you can and can not do? Be your own boss, right?
Why not just leave everyone else alone and demand that they do the same to you? Is that how you feel?
This would cause you to never have to worry again about whether your actions are right or wrong. Wouldn’t that feel good?
But, there are some things that you need to know if you head down that dark path.
Here are 7 things you can’t do as a moral relativist.
First, a relativist can’t accuse others of wrong-doing.
Relativism denies there is such a thing as right and wrong. You can’t judge the actions of others. There is no standard or measuring stick for good or bad. To each their own. The Holocaust, to the relativist is neither right or wrong. Do not talk about Abortion or Homosexuality, you can’t make a judgement call. Or hatred, racism or murder for that matter. Who is to say that murder is wrong when there are no absolutes. This is the ultimate pro-choice position…to be a Moral Relativist. No need to protest anything.
Second, a relativist can’t complain about the problem of evil.
The problem of evil in the world is the Atheists number one attack against the existence of God. An atheist believes that an all powerful God would not have allowed or permitted any kind of evil to exist today, thus there is no God out there. That means you have to believe in a kind of evil to make this argument, but relativism by definition can’t believe in good or evil. Thus, the Terrorist attacks on 9/11 can’t be evil to the Relativist.
Third, a relativist can’t place blame or accept praise.
In the relativism world, there are no standards to judge praise or condemnation. There are no measuring sticks for good or bad performance. This is a problem on the job. If the Relativist is extended a financial raise, I would ask for it, because they can’t possibly care whether they get one or not. It is all relative. This is an area where the relativist always want’s praise, but does not like to be held to accountable standards. That seems like a double standard, don’t you think?
Fourth, a relativist can’t claim anything is unfair or unjust.
With relativism, justice and fairness have no definition. They don’t fit in this Worldview. For the relativist there is no such thing as guilt or innocence. So, all those who are in prison should be set free because none of them can be guilty or innocent to the moral relativist. How can we judge their actions?
Fifth, a relativist can’t improve their morality.
Morality is a none issue for the relativist, like good and bad are too. Relativists can change their personal ethics code, but because of their personal feelings. They can even just be immoral people. But, morality has no definition for the moral relativist. For them, there is no improvement, because there is no better way, because there are no standards of right and wrong. Thus, there can’t be any motivation to improve on anything (i.e. job, life, education, family, health). Whatever feels good at the moment we should do, says the relativist.
Sixth, a relativist can’t hold meaningful moral discussions.
Relativists can talk about, well, anything of value. To talk about the weather being good or bad goes against their definitions. Relativism makes it impossible to discuss morality. Ethics compares and the relativist can’t compare morals, values, purpose, meaning and the like. No position can be judged as good or bad. Who can say that is wise or unwise, smart or dumb, good or evil? The relativist can’t. They can’t even say, “It is wrong to push your morality on others.”
Seventh, a relativist can’t promote the obligation of tolerance.
Here is our final “can’t do” for relativism. There is no such thing as tolerance in relativism. Tolerance by definition is the “practice of permitting a thing of which one disproves, such as social, ethnic, sexual or religious practices.” It is ironic that the core value of the relativist is “tolerance”, but that is a contradiction. There are no moral rules, no absolutes, and no moral principles to live by for the relativist, so how can they demand “tolerance” of anything. If there are no moral absolutes, why be tolerant at all? Why not force your morality on others? It is all about you and your personal preference of right and wrong. But, isn’t that another contradiction?
What do you think?
