Relativism’s chief virtue is tolerance, or so it seems. A closer look, though, shows just the opposite to be true: the obligation of tolerance is meaningless in relativism.
“Morality is individual,” relativists say, “therefore we ought to tolerate others’ viewpoints and not pass judgment on their behavior and attitudes.” Do you see the contradiction built into the sentence? The word “ought” is a give-away. This attempt commits suicide.
If there are no objective moral rules, there can be no rule that requires tolerance. In fact, if there is no moral truth, that’s a good reason not to be tolerant at all. Why not force my personal morality on others if it’s in my own self-interest and my own ethics allow it?
Moral relativism does not lead to tolerance. It leads to a moral free-for-all.
Greg Koukl, “No Tolerance in Relativism”
No comments:
Post a Comment