An objective view of reality holds that truth exists independently of what we think, believe, or know. Reality is not determined by individual opinion. Even if no one recognized a fact, it would still remain true. Relativism, by contrast, challenges this basic notion.
There are two main forms of relativism:
Extreme relativism, which denies that truth exists at all. It claims that no statement is objectively true, and that truth and falsehood are entirely subjective.
Moderate relativism, which accepts that truth exists in general but denies the existence of absolute truth in certain domains, such as religion, ethics, or morality. Advocates often use metaphors like the “blind men and the elephant” parable: each person perceives a part of reality and believes it represents the whole. Their perspective contains some truth but not the complete truth.
In practice, relativism tends to assert that belief alone determines truth. For example, one might claim it is true in Islam that Jesus is not God, and true in Christianity that he is. Relativism treats these beliefs as equally valid, but this approach ignores the distinction between belief and objective reality. Truth is about facts, not subjective opinion.
One common form of relativism concerns morality. It holds that moral codes are personal preferences rather than objective truths. Many who identify as moral relativists misunderstand what this entails. Saying a moral principle is right for one person but not for another does not automatically make relativism true. For instance:
Abortion may be morally wrong, but this wrongness does not change depending on whether a man or woman is involved; certain moral truths apply irrespective of personal circumstance.
Administering euthanasia might feel right to someone who sincerely believes it is morally justified, but that does not change the moral facts about whether it is right or wrong.
Relativists often confuse moral permissiveness with relativism. Claiming “It’s wrong for John to cheat on me, but okay if he’s married to someone else” is not relativism—it is self-interest and inconsistency, not a coherent moral theory. Hypocrisy can masquerade as relativism, but the two are distinct: hypocrisy is acting against one’s stated principles, while relativism is a philosophical position about truth and morality.
Extreme relativists—those who claim there is no truth—face a self-contradiction. To say “There is no truth” is itself a truth claim. If it is true that there is no truth, then there is at least one absolute truth: that there is no truth. This logical inconsistency undermines the position entirely.
Moderate relativism, which asserts that truth exists but there is no absolute truth in religion or ethics, is also flawed. If no absolute truth exists, then statements about moral or religious claims cannot be objectively evaluated. It becomes impossible to say that any belief or action is truly right or wrong. In effect, it collapses into extreme relativism, even if it appears more nuanced.
Relativism makes rational debate difficult. A relativist may reject objective standards for truth or morality but will often selectively enforce their own standards when convenient, creating inconsistency. For example, condemning female genital mutilation while opposing anti-abortion laws demonstrates an arbitrary application of moral judgment. Relativism cannot justify such selective engagement without contradiction.
Roger Scruton aptly observed that relativists are often “absolutist against authority.” They reject imposed standards but effectively create their own. Relativism, when practiced inconsistently, often leads to moral arbitrariness rather than genuine tolerance.
It is important to distinguish domains where truth can be evaluated objectively:
Empirical truth: Statements about the natural world can be tested and verified. Denying empirical truth fails its own standard.
Moral truth: Morality presupposes truth; concepts like justice and love are meaningful only if truth exists. Treating morality as purely subjective ignores the reality that actions have consequences.
Religious or supernatural truth: Denying the truth of religious claims is consistent if framed as an empirical judgment. One may reasonably conclude that specific supernatural claims are false without contradicting oneself.
Ultimately, truth is primary. Moral truths are meaningful only if grounded in reality. Elevating religious belief or personal preference above truth undermines the coherence of both ethical reasoning and rational discussion.