Moral relativism claims that right and wrong are not universal truths but are shaped by personal or cultural perspectives. On the surface, this might sound tolerant, even progressive. But let’s take a closer look at its implications.
If moral relativism is true, then no action can be objectively condemned, no matter how horrific. A culture practicing systemic injustice or an individual committing heinous crimes could simply claim, “It’s right by my standards.” If there’s no universal moral framework, how can anyone reasonably object? The very foundation of human rights—our shared understanding that certain things are inherently wrong—crumbles.
Think about it. If all moral claims are equally valid, then society can’t call out atrocities like genocide or slavery as objectively evil. These judgments would merely reflect one culture’s subjective opinion. This absurdity shows that moral relativism is self-defeating; it denies the possibility of moral progress. After all, if no set of values is better than another, what does it even mean to “progress”?
Even more paradoxically, moral relativism makes its own claim self-contradictory. It declares that no universal moral truths exist—while treating this statement as a universal truth. The logic falls apart.
Ultimately, rejecting moral relativism doesn’t mean denying nuance or cultural differences. It means affirming that some actions—like kindness, justice, and respect—are good universally, while others are plainly wrong. A world without moral foundations is not enlightened—it’s chaotic.