The Real Cost of Relativism: When Ivory Tower Theories Undermine Real-World Trust, By Professor X

Moral and cultural relativism may be a comforting doctrine in university lecture halls, but in the real world, it's a corrosive force. What starts as a benign academic theory "all cultures are equally valid" and "all moral systems are just social constructs," has metastasised into a societal ethos that erodes trust, excuses harm, and leaves entire communities vulnerable to fragmentation and injustice.

Relativism's chief appeal is emotional. It sounds tolerant. It promises harmony. But what it delivers is confusion. If no one moral standard is better than any other, then how do we draw a line between tolerance and abuse? How do we defend the vulnerable from practices that violate human dignity, like female genital mutilation, forced marriage, or "honour" killings, when someone insists these are simply "cultural differences"?

Worse still, relativism emboldens the cowardice of institutions. In the UK, grooming gangs preyed on underage girls while police and councils turned a blind eye, terrified of being labelled racist or Islamophobic. They weren't just afraid of the perpetrators, they were afraid of violating the woke Leftist relativist orthodoxy that had settled like a fog over public life.

Let's be clear: moral relativism does not promote peace. It promotes paralysis.

Societies function only when there are shared norms, basic agreements about what is good, what is evil, and what will not be tolerated. Without these, there can be no real justice. When a legal system defers to "cultural sensitivity" instead of upholding universal human rights, it ceases to be a system of justice at all. It becomes a system of selective enforcement. And nothing breeds resentment and unrest faster than the perception that the rules don't apply equally.

Academic relativists, well-shielded by tenure, peer-review committees, and publicly funded salaries, rarely live with the consequences of the ideologies they promote. They speak glowingly of "lived experience" but seem remarkably detached from the actual experiences of working-class Britons, Australians, or Americans who endure the fallout of unchecked multiculturalism and institutional cowardice. The classroom theorist who lectures on the importance of cultural nuance doesn't have to deal with the school down the road where girls are pressured to wear the hijab or avoid certain subjects for fear of offending someone. Or, just raped.

This isn't just a problem of justice, it's a problem of coherence. A society that lacks moral confidence cannot defend its institutions, its history, or its future. It cannot even explain why someone should obey the law, tell the truth, or respect others, except to say, "because it's your truth." In this vacuum, people either become apathetic, disengaging from civic life altogether, or extremist, desperate to find something absolute in a sea of moral ambiguity.

We see this in rising political violence. A 2024 survey found that nearly half of young voters in the U.S. viewed the assassination of a CEO for political reasons as "understandable." That's not fringe. That's the next generation. Raised on relativism, they're now ready to kill for what they feel is right, because they've never been taught how to reason about what is right.

Let's not mince words: relativism isn't just an idea with unintended consequences, it's a destructive ideology dressed up as tolerance. It teaches that all views are valid, except the belief that some values are better than others. It preaches that cultural diversity is more important than national unity, and that pointing out the moral failures of another culture is worse than allowing those failures to continue unchallenged.

But diversity without a moral framework is chaos. And tolerance, without boundaries, becomes complicity. What we need isn't a return to rigid dogma or reactionary puritanism. We need a reinvigoration of moral clarity, a recognition that while cultures may differ, there are some principles that transcend time and place. These include the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, freedom of speech, and the equality of women and men. These values must not be sacrificed on the altar of relativist comfort.

Let the academics have their moral fog. The rest of us are trying to keep the lights on in a society that still believes in right and wrong. It was known as the West.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/05/the_dangers_of_moral_and_cultural_relativism.html

"The dangers of moral and cultural relativism

By Kevin Finn

Most of the people I work with are Democrats. I no longer engage with them on any topics related to current events, but I do get a great many essay ideas from listening to them speak with one another.

Yesterday, someone at another table was speaking grandly about how people who think they know everything (that would be conservatives) see things in black and white, whereas "we" (the anointed left) understand that there are always shades of gray. He opined that we must give equal respect to other people's cultures and traditions. Apparently, there are always reasons to excuse the misdeeds of certain individuals and groups, whereas there is rarely a good reason to justify the pushback from those who are harmed.

His opinion is not uncommon. The voices of those who claim that ethical standards and cultural norms are subjective and lack universal validity are getting louder and more numerous. This belief in moral and cultural relativism threatens societies worldwide. When relativism is coupled with rapid cultural changes or tolerance of harmful practices, it undermines social cohesion, ethical accountability, and resilience. On the other hand, advocating for universal principles can help balance diversity with justice.

Legal systems in democratic societies struggle to enforce laws when ethnic communities defend practices such as honor killings and female genital mutilation (FGM) as cultural traditions. Yet a 2024 U.N. report documented their harmful impact on thousands of women and girls annually. This abuse occurred in regions that sometimes defend it as "culturally appropriate."

Similarly, in the U.K., "grooming gangs" targeted British children for sexual abuse. Locals who complained were subjected to sanctions by authorities who feared being labeled discriminatory and Islamophobic.

These examples illustrate how relativism erodes ethical accountability by excusing harmful actions. When individuals are left unprotected, societal trust in institutions is eroded.

Healthy societies place a priority on shared values such as justice and respect. These foster trust and cooperation. Moral relativism treats all cultural norms equally, which undermines this foundation. By preaching unbridled tolerance, relativism poses a great danger to society. When diversity is sold as a virtue, it erases common ground. Relativism breeds disagreements over fundamental issues such as free speech, private property, human rights, and gender equality. For instance, if one group values gender equality, whereas another restricts women's rights, relativism offers no framework to resolve the tension. That can lead to social fragmentation. One study found that communities with conflicting values over fundamental rights experienced higher rates of social unrest.

Unchecked tolerance enables practices that weaken the bonds that hold communities together. Communities that do not share the same values will fragment, causing conflicts as mutual understanding becomes impossible.

Moral and cultural relativism creates a vacuum that may lead to either apathy or extremism. If there are no universal values, some individuals can become apathetic, believing that there are no causes worth defending. This may be reflected by low voter turnout, which weakens a society's resilience.

Conversely, relativism can fuel extremism in those who lack the tools to challenge harmful beliefs. For example, a 2024 survey found that 41% of young voters viewed the killing of a corporate CEO as acceptable. Another study found a significant percentage of Americans who feel that some degree of violence is acceptable to reach their political goals. This reflects a dangerous moral ambiguity rooted in relativist thinking.

There are objective, universal truths. Some things are good, and others are evil. Moral and cultural relativism deny these and thus blur the distinctions between good and evil. Relativism undermines shared values; excuses harm; and leaves societies vulnerable to division, apathy, and extremism. Societies are thereby destabilized, increasing the risks of conflict and injustice.

To avoid this, societies must find a balance between cultural diversity and adherence to universal principles such as human rights and dignity. These provide the basis for justice and unity. They must facilitate dialogue and foster education on shared values. Diversity can be respected while the society builds unity and resilience.

Although relativism may seem appealing as a path to tolerance, societies must reaffirm shared values if they are to thrive. Tolerance must not become a license for harm.