I'm regularly reminded of this article. Really, the article might be more concise than I can be in regard to frustration with moral relativists.
The point is made very well here that the teaching of facts as opposed to opinions in public schools do manipulate kids into thinking that there are no moral facts. Every statement of "ought" or "should" is taught as an opinion. More importantly, kids are marked wrong (punished) if that way that any statement of value is a fact. If statement is posed on a quiz, "It is wrong to cheat on a test. Fact or opinion?" and students are marked wrong for saying that it's a fact, we're actually instilling a moral system in kids' minds. Namely, we're teaching kids that it's a moral fact that there are no moral facts. Speaking from my own experience in public schools, students have little recourse to argue differently -- kids also generally lack the mental nature maturity.
The thing is, this myopic teaching is infecting us in ways that we often can't fathom. Too often, we do think that a fact is only something that can be tested and proven.
The article brings up the valid point that there are things that we can test, and think that we've proven, only to discover that we were wrong. Also, there are things that can be true that we don't know about.
Moral relativists tend to be the laziest thinkers with whom I interact.
Reliably, moral relativists don't have much formal training in philosophy. This isn't me pulling rank (I'm an autodidact when it comes to moral philosophy myself). I'm also not trying to pull an appeal to authority. It's possible that there are no moral facts; but, most people who don't believe in moral facts treat their belief like it is objective knowledge -- as if they've grown out of religious dogma and they've gained some wisdom that they need to use to correct the rest of us.
The reality is that most philosophers do believe in the concept of moral facts.
All the relativists try to do is play with the concept of facts. They try to say that, if there's a fight about what's morally right, or we simply don't know what morally right right now, that there's no fact. They lack the imagination that there can be a fact that we've yet to discover. For all of Sam Harris's faults, which are plentiful, a clear contribution that he made to popular thinking on morality is the idea that moral thinking should be a discovery process. The facts exist, even if we don't know all of them right now.
It's true that people in my camp risk the possibility of being wrong while operating under the impression that certain actions are factually right and wrong. I operate under the impression that it's a fact that rape is wrong. I think I'm safe there. The thing is, most relativists seem to operate under the same impression while denying that it's a fact that rape is wrong.
Relativists need to deal in obscurity, and they've created a framework that's conducive to obscurity. It's broad and specific, fat and thin, tall and short all at the same time wherever it's useful for a relativist to pull his or her bullshit.
The one thing that relativists can't claim is belief that there are moral facts that apply to all conscious creatures. Otherwise, they get to play with their language in a matter of expedience to their moral perversions. Basically, morality has to be non-factual at the individual level or the societal level. Meta-ethical and normative relativism, though distinct, fall into the same traps.
It has actually been said to me, that female genital mutilation is only wrong as a social construct.
That's a problem for the relativists.
Most relativists in the Western world still operate as if FGM is wrong. Okay, well, that's because FGM is not generally accepted in Western society. Still, the relativist must condemn the person with a brain in his or her head, for criticizing the practice happening in different cultures. Okay, maybe the relativists have an argument that cultures that allow girls to keep their genitals intact, and cultures that permanently remove the most important physical component's in regard to females' sexual pleasure in a needless and painful procedure, are simply separate but equal. I don't believe that, because I'm not a monster. But, okay, I'll give the relativists that for the sake of steel-manning the shit out of them.
Okay...so a family moves in to the house next to you from one of these other cultures. They tell you that their baby girl is gonna have her genitals mutilated in a ceremony next week. Do you respect the cultural difference; or, do you call the fucking cops?
They're playing the same game as every soft socialist. They play with the concept of social constructs, and try to bolster and dismiss the constructs at the same time. They preach the wisdom of the group; but, inevitably, when pushed, it's the wisdom of any individual, no matter how evil or perverse, that they want respected.
It's a constant Motte and Bailey.
No, moral relativism isn't a sign of an educated person who his risen above the simplistic certitude of the rest of us. Relativism, by and large, is the sign of a person who has gross moral values and needs a way to defend them. It's the sign of a person looking for an easy answer -- the easiest answer is none. It's a bait and switch. It's a lie. It's also logically incoherent.
