There's so much more to say. I hate to even post this because it seems so shallow, so uncritical. It ignores important arguments to draw light to certain issues, and I hate that, but what can I do. I'd write a book, but within the context of this issue, there's not much to be said. It just needs said louder...
Moral relativism is a concept I've been wrestling with since I was in high school, over 20 years ago. And I'm just dumbfounded that it still exists. "True for you, but not for me," should've died out a long time ago. Given it's porous philosophical underpinnings, I can only attribute it's longevity and current popularity to the desire of man to ignore God and justify sin. Its impressive failure as a viable worldview should've sent it the way of dinosaurs and 8-track tapes, but it clings tenaciously on, as hip as ever, even if it does have the intellectual appeal of the emperor's new clothes. Its like the bacteria of the philosophical world; ubiquitous, often annoying, and unevolved.
What explains this unexpected stamina? I think it must be the sin nature of man. Because man is basically selfish, or evil, he desires above all else to serve himself. Anyone who's ever watched a baby sleep might argue, but everyone who's ever had a child knows this to be true. Babies are pre-programmed to get what they want, and they usually do. Nothing against children here, after all, I have three of my own whom I adore, but they are all undeniably selfish at heart. They have to be taught to share, serve and be considerate of others. It doesn't come naturally.
Altruism, which undeniably exists in human culture is an issue of conscience. C.S. Lewis called it the voice of God. But conscience dictates what we ought to do, not what we actually do. In this sense, conscience represents an understanding of Truth that exists apart from ourselves. Adam Smith called it an "impartial spectator." Whatever we might call it, it is the driving force behind that truth we each call 'morality.' Now, morality might be different from person to person and culture to culture, but it exists universally in the human condition. We are ALL moral people, even if those morals might put us at odds with one another. Some people might be immoral, but no one is amoral.
oops, I digress...
My point is that relativism, which is just, philosophically speaking, pooh, bunk, brain plaque that survives because we are all pre-programmed to fulfill our own desires (regardless of conscience) and relativism gives us the framework to do that. It makes it okay for me to do whatever I want because whatever I want is right for me. Relativism says that its okay for me to cheat on my wife because if that's what I feel is right, then it is right. Never mind the messy painful (for her)divorce, the psychological damage to the children, the awkward uncomfortable plight of friends. If I want to have an affair, its okay because its what I want. Relativism is the supreme elevation of the I within the philosophical moral framework. You are ultimately irrelevant. So if, for instance, I want to start bashing gays, or promote slavery, or forsake preserving the planet for future generations, you shouldn't have a problem with it. After all, as a moral relativist, you can't in good conscience impose your beliefs on me.
"But what about tolerance?!" you might cry. Tolerance is only a virtue if it exists outside the relativist framework. For that matter, the same can be said of diversity. The moment you start blathering on about tolerance, you refute your relativist position, you forsake your own moral high ground, hoping to have it back when non-relativist truth is imposed. But rationally you've lost. Like a spaghetti strainer, your worldview holds no water. Sorry.
The Truth is that relativism is a shallow excuse for people who want to thoughtlessly pursue their own selfish agenda without consequence. It is the philosophical low road. That university professors or their students embrace such claptrap remains unconscionable, not even worthy of the oft misabused title of Dogma.
