Moral relativism: why ‘your truth’ might be total nonsense

Moral relativism is one of those ideas that sounds enlightened until you actually follow it to its logical conclusion. The belief that "everyone is entitled to their own truth" is often presented as tolerant, inclusive, even progressive. But scratch the surface, and it becomes clear that relativism isn’t the antidote to dogma — it’s just another kind of dogma, one that refuses to name anything as true at all.

At its core, moral relativism holds that what is right or wrong depends entirely on culture, context, or individual belief. There is no universal standard by which to judge anything. Honour killings? That’s just their tradition. Bribery? A cultural norm. Free speech? A Western construct. And while this approach can foster a certain kind of intellectual humility — a reminder not to impose one’s values too quickly — it can also dissolve the very foundations of justice. If everything is relative, then anything can be justified.

The modern form of relativism isn’t just about anthropology or sociology. It’s emotional. Therapeutic. It thrives in the language of lived experience, personal truth, and subjective reality. You have your truth. I have mine. And who are you to say otherwise? But this kind of thinking doesn’t make us freer. It makes us incoherent. If all truths are valid, then truth ceases to have meaning. And without meaning, we can't argue, persuade, or even disagree. We can only perform.

Think better. Get the FREE guide.
Join Veridaze and get 10 Mental Tools for Clearer Thinking — a free guide to cutting through noise, confusion, and nonsense.

Subscribe now

You see this in the erosion of public discourse. In place of debate, we get assertion. In place of dialogue, identity. If someone says they feel harmed by a statement, then it is harmful. If a group finds something offensive, then it must be removed. Facts become less important than feelings. And feelings, conveniently, can’t be falsified.

This isn’t compassion. It’s epistemological surrender. It strips us of the very tools we need to live in a pluralistic society: reason, debate, shared standards. Justice itself becomes impossible without the belief that some things really are wrong, regardless of who does them or where they happen. If truth is just a matter of perspective, then the powerful will always win. Because might makes right when right has no content.

Strangely, the people most committed to relativism rarely apply it evenly. They will argue, often fiercely, for the universal truth of gender equality or climate action or indigenous rights. But if someone else claims a conflicting "truth," suddenly we must make room for nuance. This is not tolerance. It's incoherence with good PR.

Real tolerance requires standards. It means saying: I disagree with you, but I won't silence you. It means recognising that not all viewpoints are equal, even if all people are. It means defending the right to argue, not erasing the difference between argument and attack.

There is a place for humility in moral judgment. Of course there is. We should be slow to condemn and quick to listen. But moral relativism is not humility. It is paralysis. It says we can’t judge, even when we must. It trades courage for comfort, truth for tact.

And in doing so, it doesn’t protect us from conflict. It makes us incapable of resolving it. As Roger Scruton once wrote: "Never believe someone who says there is no truth. He is telling you not to believe him."

Exactly.