Moral Relativism

Don’t worry; I won’t get all serious on you all the time, but I was thinking that I needed to get this off my chest.

• There is no right and wrong.
• There is no good and evil.
• There is only fact and fiction.

Morals do not universally exist; mine are different to yours and yours are different to mine. The only arguments I have ever heard against it are as follows:

• Are you saying that we are no better than Hitler and Stalin?

Yes.

• Should we therefore tolerate murderers and paedophiles?

It’s up to you. Since these are both defined by law, you can either go against society or accept it. Your choice. Personal ethics.

• If that’s the case, you’re saying that it is true (“right”) for there to be no morals, defeating your own point.

Nope. Fact is not moral relative. It just is. It’s how humans construct the idea that define whether it’s good or bad.

Freedom does not exist. Only in total anarchy would there be a chance, but even then, I cannot do what I want. I am restricted to gravity, to matter and to energy, for instance.

So many writers misuse these terms. Paolini, I’m looking at you. By calling your empire “evil”, I feel sorry for it, in fact, and I hate Eragon more. I mean, what’s Galby done? Poor guy. It’s about the struggle of the character, deciding what to do, not because it’s just bad. And besides, how does he know it’s bad if he cannot contrast it to another society? It’s all he knows, so…?

That is all.

(I also hate humanity. Slaughter everyone, I say, before we do any more damage. Perhaps this blog should “Diary of the Cynic”?)