Tolerance (Relativism Continued…)

Ah! “Tolerance!” The most valued and highest held virtue of a relativist society. Now, there is nothing wrong with tolerance when properly understood. It is something that can be used for good, but in the relativist’s mind being “intolerant” means disagreeing with someone. Basically you shouldn’t strongly disagree with someone or you’re not a tolerant person. If I disagree with homosexual acts, I’m intolerant. If I think abortion is murder, I’m intolerant. Get the picture? Telling someone that they are intolerant because you do not agree with their worldview is one big ironic mess…. which is typical to the relativist ideology.

What is tolerance?

Like almost every virtue relativism touches it becomes a warped version of its true meaning. Tolerance in the true form is a variation of patience. “I will be a patient with your beliefs and respect that you have the right to express them.” When you throw in the modern version of tolerance you get the same thing as above but with the added, “Our beliefs are equal.” Not only that, but today we even see people being called intolerant because they won’t condone an immoral action. The problem with the relativist philosophy is that because nothing is true and everything is equal it has led to moral/religious/political ambiguity. This ambiguity strips the truth away and it is reduced to “what is true/right for me…”

Why Relativism is intolerant.

The removal of God or the commandments from the public sphere.

The fining of Christians who refuse to propagate homosexual lifestyle.

The constant attack on the Catholic physicians who refuse to perform abortions.

The attempts to force employers to pay for contraception.

These are all example of things relativism has attempted or successfully completed in doing. Now if the definition of tolerance is to be patient with another persons views and allow them to express them, the above examples are proof of relativism being intolerant. Forcing the removal of public expression of beliefs, and punishing people for disagreeing and not complying with things they view as immoral in itself is intolerant. Disagreeing and speaking out about your disagreement is not intolerance.

Now you may be asking, “Well what about when Christians try to pass laws against homosexual marriage or abortion? Isn’t that intolerant? First you would have to recognize what legislating a law means. Laws are legislation of morality. All law (at least in the free countries) are restraints to keep people from violating things that the society sees as immoral. Passing laws that ban abortion isn’t intolerance. It is an attempt by those who hold the objective view that abortion is murder. This is much different then forcing religious legislation. For example, forcing people to pray the rosary 5 times a day or attend church ever Sunday is intolerant and wrong. Forcing religion has been proven not to work and it is not genuine faith. But pushing for laws that are based off reason and natural law are not intolerant and shouldn’t be cast out just because such virtues may correspond with a particular faith.


In conclusion we see that tolerance has been warped from a state of being patient with others views, to a complete acceptance of behavior that is immoral to the objectivist. It leads to ambiguity on a religious/moral/political level and shows that relativism in its own practice is greatly intolerant when taken with the proper definition.

Moral Relativism

Lets start out with a topic that isn’t given much thought by the average person yet when brought up its very controversial. Why? Because thats what I like to do, make you think about something other then what Kim Kardashian had for lunch.

When it comes to morality there are two predominante paths you may choose. These paths are relativism or objectivism. Relativism seems to be the most popular in the western world as of now, while objective views are seen as “intolerant” (which of course is untrue). But before I begin spewing out words about how relativism is wrong, let us first define it for those of you scratching your head and frantically googling it for answers.

Moral Relativism in a nutshell is the belief that there is no absolute universal truth and “truth” differs from culture to culture or person to person. The truth is relative to what each person thinks. This philosophy is held by a large number of the people today. Both morally and religiously. This relativism not only leads to spiritual emptiness and a endless search for purpose but it also creates a moral rumble pit of opinions and views. Relativism is so accepted however because like many false philosophies it comes off as tolerant and accepting, when in reality it is a false tolerance. Lets break it down.

Relativism as a philosophical worldview. 

Let us think about what relativism holds as its only precept, “The only truth is that their is no absolute truth.” That sound pretty cool right? At least until you realize it makes absolutely no sense. If there is no absolute truth how can you claim that the only truth is that there is none?

Relativism Applied

When applied in the real world relativism runs into a few walls. Relativism, in its own teaching, tells us that wrong and right are determined based off personal sentiments, emotions and cultural environment. If this is true, then 9/11 was just the difference between cultural worldviews. What is wrong for us, may be right to those who attacked the Twin Towers. Now most people would disagree with this because the loss of life on 9/11 was so appalling that any reasonable person would see the evil in it. Because of objectivley evil acts such as 9/11, the Holocaust, and a multitude of other things, many people are selective relativists when it comes to morality. All this means is people pick their moral beliefs like they’re at cafeteria. They may think that murder is wrong but have no opinion on things such as sexual ethics. They choose their morality. Those relativists who preach that anything goes, as long as you don’t hurt others, subvert the very principle of relativism.

One of the most destructive things moral relativism brings is a loss of purpose. When everyone is trying to discern the meaning of life and truth for themselves it leads to one of three things. That there is no truth, that we cannot know that truth or the truth is whatever you wish it to be. The issue that comes into play is that when the relativist “discovers” a purpose in life that he has found worthy then he must admit that he has not discovered any meaning but has just invented his own. This lack of truth and purpose ultimately leads to despair for those who cannot cope and for those who try it leads to a frantic attempt to avoid the big questions through endless occupation of time.

So as we see relativism as a philosophy and applied in the real world has many pitfalls that people don’t give thought to. In my next post we will go deeper into relativism’s flaws, compare it to objective views and how relativism hides behind a false tolerance.

To be continued…