you subscribe to the Relativist (and it’s stylish kid brother, Post-Modernist) ideology, there are some things that you simply can’t (logically) do.
I don’t agree with such epistemology, but I also don’t wig out much about Relativism and/or Post-Modernism. But still, it would sure be nice if proponents of those views were just a little conceptually consistent. Because I would estimate that about 98% of people who claim to be Relativists/Post-Modernists actually are not. They want to have their conceptual cake and eat it, too. Uh, no.
In all relativism, there is no way to truly know anything. And if there simply IS no “solid” right or wrong, on what grounds can anyone object to anything?
And pair it with lack of moral agency as with the various forms of determinism and the concepts of right and wrong make even LESS sense—a person prospers according to his or her own genius and conquers according to his or her her own strength—and NOTHING they do could be construed as a “crime.”
Unless there is some kind of “Truth-Teller,” the language of morality is totally bogus and bereft of ANY logical sense! Indeed, the ONLY way to invoke morality is to postulate some sort of god. Or God. Otherwise it is just Nietzschean preference—a mere display of power.
Anything contrary to this is just mushy-headed defensiveness. Let’s be QUITE clear: To postulate right and wrong IS to postulate a unique God (not Pantheism). If there is right and wrong and you can know things, there logically must be a God. That logic is air-tight!
Indeed, to know ANYTHING is, at heart, an appeal to traditional theism. Because if there is no God and everything is just random crap or a demonstration of a mere will-to-power, then NOTHING can be known, anyway! So no science…
THAT is why Galileo and Newton and such were overt and unapologetic theists. THAT was an integral and logically necessary part of the scientific endeavor itself! That is also why science only evolved in Christian Europe, and not in the more practically advanced China…