For a group (moral relativist) that believes in no absolutes, it seems odd that their basic premise is based upon an absolute and taught in an absolute fashion…no deviation. Anyone that wonders off the range must be an intolerant bigot, an idiot, or usually both. In order for the moral relativist position to be valid, they have to insist on something that they deny…truth exist.
There are 3 truths that the moral relativist insists that you must believe in:
1. That there is no truth. (This must be true for their belief system to exist)
2. God does not exist. (Without truth God is not needed.)
3. There are no objective moral norms (Even though they insist on certain objective moral norms for themselves such as tolerance)
Before this search gets started, I realize that some of the crucial language is not always familiar; therefore definitions of the key terms will be provided here.
Morality: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct; motivation based on ideas of right and wrong.
Relativism: is the concept of points of view having no absolute truth, or validity, and have only relative, subjective values according to differences in perception and consideration. Truth as well as right and wrong are one’s own opinion.
Moral Relativism: the view that when it comes to questions of morality, there are no absolutes and no objective right or wrong; moral rules are merely personal preferences and/or the result of one’s cultural, sexual, or ethnic orientation. Therefore truth is a subjective concept.
Objective Morality: morality is "objective" is to say that notions of "right" and "wrong" are universal and fixed for all times. What are "right" and "wrong" today will be that way for all times and all cultures. Objective denotes something which exists regardless of whether there are beings who perceive it or not.
Let’s start this search with the fact previously stated; that many people see relativism as necessary for promoting tolerance, non-judgmentalism, and inclusiveness. If you believe your moral position is correct and others’ incorrect, you are viewed as closed-minded and intolerant, even bigoted. They usually base this premise on the well-known differences of opinion on morality between cultures and individuals. The moral relativist embraces the view that one should not judge other cultures and individuals, for to do so would be intolerant. There are at least four problems with this argument, all of which maintain that tolerance (rightly understood) and relativism are actually incompatible with each other.
Tolerance supports objective morality, not relativism. Ironically, the call to tolerance by relativists presupposes the existence of at least one nonrelative, universal, and objective norm: tolerance.
If everyone ought to be tolerant, then tolerance is an objective moral norm. Therefore, moral relativism is false. Also, tolerance presupposes that there is something good about being tolerant, such as being able to learn from others with whom one disagrees or to impart knowledge and wisdom to others. But that presupposes objective moral values, namely, that knowledge and wisdom are good things. Moreover, tolerance presupposes that someone may be correct about his or her moral perspective. That is to say, it seems that part of the motivation for advocating tolerance is to encourage people to be open to the possibility that one may be able to gain truth and insight (including moral truth and insight) from another who may possess it. If that is the case, then objective moral truths exist that one can learn.
Published on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 @ 5:50 AM CDT