Which is not only rude; it's also wrong. It's wrong because they are not using the term correctly. Moral relativism is not simply a synonym for tolerance.

Dictionary.com defines relativism as 'a theory that moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or cultures holding them."

For example, if one culture maintains bestiality is taboo while another embraces it, the moral relativist concludes that neither is wrong. So whether yours is a system of democratic capitalists, theocentric autocrats or dog-fucking savages—it's all okie-dokie because there is no universal ethical code by which to measure them.

What I like about this worldview is that it recognizes the right of any society to set its own system of mores—that every culture knows what's best for itself because every culture is beholden to its own unique geographical, political and historical circumstances, which also happens to be the premise of America's (dying) emphasis on local government and states' rights.

Also attractive about moral relativism is that, by definition, it deters colonialism. When one culture believes itself to be superior to another, it uses that belief to justify invasions, assassinations, forced religious conversions and all the other predictable, colonialistic bullcrap these so-called superior societies pull on those they consider morally inferior.

The problem, however, is that when you follow relativism down its inevitable slope of slipperosity, you plummet into a dark and ugly paradox. Because, if it's true that anything any society does to itself is A-OK, then what about Adolph Hitler and his Holocaust? What about Josef Stalin, Benito Mussolini and Pol-motherfucking-Pot? What about every tyrannical society that ever kneeled at the altar of the iron maiden? By definition, moral relativism concedes that tyranny and genocide are not amoral. And you're just not going to find too many people who subscribe to that worldview who don't have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on their MySpace friends list.

Indeed, I'm closer to a moral relativist than anyone I know. And the reason I say that is because, when asked the 'Was Adolph Hitler evil?" question, I am the only person I know who might consider answering, 'No, I do not believe Adolph Hitler was evil."

Now, before you lurch off the toilet and howl in protest about the hideous remark I just made, let me say, in my defense, that I'm not a true moral relativist. A better label would be agnostic moral relativist. As with anything else, I think maybe it's true or maybe it isn't. But the reason I can even consider the potential non-evilness of a beast like Adolph Hitler is because I'm not quite certain that evil exists at all. I just wonder sometimes if the Holocaust and other acts of genocide aren't like tsunamis, or earthquakes, or disease, or computer hackers, or forest fires, or man-eating sharks, even. Yes they are destructive entities in this world, but destructive entities—whether designed intelligently or Darwinianly—are part of the ecosystem of the universe. So the question is, if something is vital to the ecosystem of the universe, how could it be wrong, immoral or evil?

Yeah, I know, it's an extreme position, but don't you wonder what would happen to the planet if all the bad people, the bad animals and the bad organisms disappeared and suddenly everything and everyone was good? I have a nagging suspicion that if that happened it would be very, very bad.

However, when I debate this position with my liberal or libertarian friends, all they ever hear are the words 'Hitler" and 'not evil," then pounce on me like street thugs on a drunken tourist in the middle of the night. It is a position they cannot fathom, will not tolerate and loathe to their very core, which is exactly how I know there simply aren't that many moral relativists out there.

That's how I know the hardcore, right-wing, microphone-shutting blabbermouths are full of shit when they call a liberal or libertarian a moral relativist. Because your typical liberal or your typical libertarian does believe in right and wrong. It's just that their right and wrong is different from the right-wing blabbermouth's idea of right and wrong.

For instance, liberals and libertarians think it's wrong to discriminate against people based on their sexual preferences, wrong to criminalize a sexual business transaction between consenting adults, wrong to let the government dictate a woman's reproductive rights and ludicrous to suggest they lack morality. But isn't it always the same thing with the right-wing blabbermouths? Their idea of patriotism is the only idea of patriotism, their idea of family is the only idea of family, their idea of morality is the only idea of morality, and if you dare to argue, they sharpen their quiver of catchphrases and aim them at your face. This in itself is reason to consider them entities of pure evil. However, when they use the catchphrases incorrectly, well, that's evil and pathetic.

And now, a relevant joke:

A: He stayed up all night wondering if there was a Dog and if it would be wrong to fuck it.

EJD
07/11/07

[Author's note: the following is an excerpt from the original column that was not published because of space constraints and for fear of identifying myself as a raging nerd for referencing Star Trek in an article about philosophy].

The Excerpt:

Incidentally, do you know who is a fairly famous moral relativist that I admire?: Gene Roddenberry. Indeed, the show Star Trek was a moral relativist's paradise. And did you know Star Trek was based on the expeditions of another famous moral relativist, Captain Cook, who I also admire.

"Captain James Cook was an English explorer, navigator and cartographer. He was the first to map Newfoundland. He made three voyages to the Pacific Ocean during which he achieved the first European contact with the eastern coastline of Australia, the European discovery of the Hawaiian Islands, and the first recorded circumnavigation of New Zealand."¹

Like me, Gene Roddenberry must have been a fan of Captain Cook because he was the model for Roddenberry's franchise character, Captain Kirk.

Consider the similarities of their names: Captain James Kirk and Captain James Cook.

Consider the similarities in their bios: Both were sailors. Captain Cook commandeered the Endeavor to new and distant lands, Captain Kirk sailed the Enterprise to new and distant planets.

Both grew up on farms in rural villages. Both kept journals. Captain Cook wrote in his that he'd sailed, "farther than any other man has been before." Captain Kirk wrote in his star log about boldy going, "where no man has gone before."

"Cook rowed jolly boats ashore, accompanied by his naturalist, his surgeon and musket-toting red-jacketed marines. Kirk 'beamed down' to planets with the Science officer, (Spock) surgeon (McCoy) and phaser-wielding, red-jerseyed expendables. Both captains set out to discover new lands, rather than conquer and convert."²

On Star Trek, they called that ideology, The Prime Directive. The Prime Directive stated that the commissioned federation explorer was not to interfere or in any way upset the natural state of being of whatever species or civilization they encountered. Even if that new species was eating its young and fucking the Tribbles, The Prime Directive mandated they not interfere.

And The Prime Directive is a direct cribbing of Captain Cook's policy for encountering aboriginals and natives in the lands he discovered. Cook was criticized often for this approach, as most of Europe believed itself to be civilized and that it was their duty to conquer, convert, and modernize the primitive cultures their explorers encountered.

Cook was ahead of his time though. He wrote this about the aboriginals he encountered:

"Being wholly unacquainted not only with the superfluous but the necessary conveniences so sought after in Europe, they are happy not knowing the use of them. They live in Tranquility which is not disturb'd by the Inequality of Condition."

Cook, like Kirk, had no interest in conquering – only in observing, appreciating, perhaps interacting – but never interfering; a core value of moral relativism.

1. From Wikipedia.com
2. From Into the Blue by Tony Horowitz