Moral relativism enables power structures while claiming neutrality
Moral relativism presents itself as the enlightened position: “Who are we to judge? All cultures have their own values.” This apparent humility masks a more insidious function—it systematically disarms moral criticism while preserving existing power arrangements.
The neutrality deception
Relativism claims to be value-neutral, but neutrality in the face of oppression is itself a moral stance. When you declare that “all moral systems are equally valid,” you’re not abstaining from judgment—you’re making a judgment that benefits whoever currently holds power.
This false neutrality operates like a philosophical shell game. By constantly redirecting attention to the “impossibility” of objective moral standards, relativism prevents sustained critique of actual injustices happening right now.
The key insight: claiming neutrality is never neutral. It’s a choice to preserve the status quo.
Power’s favorite philosophy
Examine who benefits when moral relativism dominates intellectual discourse. It’s not the oppressed seeking justice—it’s institutions that prefer their actions remain unexamined.
Corporate executives love moral relativism. “Who’s to say our labor practices are wrong? Different cultures have different standards.” Authoritarian governments embrace it: “Democracy works for you, but our system reflects our values.” Academic institutions deploy it: “All knowledge systems are equally valid, including those that coincidentally align with our funding sources.”
Relativism provides sophisticated cover for maintaining power while appearing progressive and inclusive.
The tolerance trap
Modern relativism operates through what appears to be tolerance but functions as selective paralysis. We’re told to tolerate intolerance, to respect perspectives that deny basic human dignity, to treat oppressive systems as mere “cultural differences.”
This creates an asymmetrical moral landscape where those committed to justice must constantly justify their positions, while those perpetuating harm hide behind relativistic protection. The burden of proof shifts to victims and their advocates.
The result: systematic injustices persist while critics are dismissed as “culturally insensitive” or “morally arrogant.”
Categorical confusion
Relativism conflates different types of moral claims to create artificial equivalencies. There’s a vast difference between:
- Aesthetic preferences (chocolate vs. vanilla)
- Cultural practices (bowing vs. handshakes)
- Fundamental rights (freedom from torture, basic dignity)
By treating all moral claims as equally relative, this philosophy obscures crucial distinctions. Not all values are created equal, and pretending they are serves specific political purposes.
The universality misdirection
Critics of moral objectivity often point to cultural variation in moral beliefs as evidence against universal standards. This commits a basic logical error: disagreement about truth doesn’t negate truth’s existence.
People disagree about mathematics, physics, and medicine across cultures. This doesn’t make these fields “merely relative.” The existence of moral disagreement might indicate the difficulty of moral reasoning, not its impossibility.
More importantly, focusing on disagreement ignores remarkable cross-cultural convergences: prohibitions against unprovoked violence, some form of reciprocity principle, concern for children’s welfare. These convergences suggest underlying moral realities that transcend cultural boundaries.
Institutional implementation
Universities implement relativism through “both sides” requirements that treat genocide denial and historical scholarship as equally valid perspectives. Media outlets present climate science and corporate propaganda as equivalent viewpoints deserving equal time.
Legal systems invoke cultural relativism to excuse honor killings, female genital mutilation, and other practices that would be prosecuted if committed by majority populations. International organizations paralyzed by relativistic principles fail to intervene in clear cases of systematic oppression.
These aren’t accidental misapplications—they’re the predictable result of relativistic logic.
The resistance nullification
Moral relativism systematically undermines resistance movements by attacking their foundational claims. When activists assert that certain conditions are objectively unjust, relativists respond: “That’s just your opinion based on your cultural conditioning.”
This response pattern has several devastating effects:
- It delegitimizes righteous anger
- It reframes systemic issues as personal preferences
- It shifts focus from changing conditions to examining motivations
- It creates paralysis through infinite regress of self-doubt
Revolutionary energy dissipates into academic nnaval-gazing about the nature of moral knowledge.
The expert substitution
When moral relativism eliminates objective standards, something must fill the void. Enter the experts: anthropologists, sociologists, cultural theorists who become arbiters of what counts as legitimate cultural practice.
This creates a new hierarchy where academic authorities determine which cultural claims deserve protection under relativistic principles. The same people who rejected moral expertise in principle reconstruct it through procedural back doors.
The result: power shifts from traditional moral authorities to academic institutions, but hierarchical structures remain intact.
Economic instrumentalization
Global capitalism leverages moral relativism to justify exploitation across different regions. “Labor conditions that seem harsh by Western standards are normal here—we’re respecting local values.”
This economic relativism allows corporations to arbitrage moral standards, seeking the most permissive environments for their operations while claiming cultural sensitivity. The same companies that tout human rights in developed markets invoke relativism to excuse abuses elsewhere.
Relativism becomes a tool for moral laundering, transforming exploitation into respect for diversity.
The genuine alternative
Rejecting relativism doesn’t require embracing dogmatic authoritarianism. It means acknowledging that some moral claims can be evaluated objectively, that human flourishing provides measurable criteria for moral assessment, that power dynamics affect whose values get treated as “relative.”
This position allows for genuine moral inquiry while maintaining critical stance toward all authority claims—including those made in relativism’s name.
The goal isn’t to impose particular values but to develop frameworks for distinguishing better from worse moral positions based on their consequences for human wellbeing and dignity.
Recognition and response
Understanding relativism’s political function enables more effective resistance. When someone invokes cultural relativity to excuse obvious harm, the appropriate response isn’t philosophical debate but political analysis: who benefits from this position?
When institutions claim neutrality while systematically advantaging certain groups, the task isn’t to prove moral objectivity but to expose the selectivity of their relativistic applications.
When academic authorities use relativism to avoid taking stands on urgent issues, the solution isn’t better moral theory but direct action that forces institutional positioning.
Moral relativism’s appeal lies in its apparent sophistication and inclusivity. Its danger lies in how effectively it neutralizes moral opposition while appearing to transcend partisan positioning.
The choice isn’t between relativism and dogmatism—it’s between honest acknowledgment of moral reality and sophisticated systems for avoiding moral responsibility.
Power structures prefer the latter because it allows them to continue operating while their critics remain paralyzed by philosophical self-doubt.
Those committed to justice can’t afford such paralysis.