In order to remain consistent the ethical relativist cannot criticize intolerable moral practices (such as genocide in Nazi Germany and apartheid in South Africa), believe in real moral progress (such as the abolition of slavery), or acknowledge the existence of real moral reformers (such as Martin Luther King, Jr.).
— Francis Beckwith, from Politically Correct Death, p. 24
What kind of world would it be if relativism were true?
It would be a world in which nothing is wrong; nothing is considered evil or good, or worthy of praise or blame; in which there is no accountability; no possibility of moral improvement, or even a moral discourse; and where there is no tolerance.
— Greg Koukl, from The Bankruptcy of Relativism lecture at 58:30
Isn’t it interesting that the last twenty years of education have focused on sensitivity training and cross-cultural understanding, while the academy has focused its efforts on relativism and an anti-Christian curriculum? Witness now a relativistic West trying to defend itself with a misguided, absolutist, non-Christian worldview (Islam). Scholars thought they were evicting the Christian faith as to give themselves center-stage. They have run from the arms of a “Lion” into the arms of a “Bear” that will not allow them their own relativistic privileges. The Christian faith looks better and better all the time, if for no other reason than that the courtesy of disbelief is granted. That grace Islam seems incapable of offering even to its own people.
— Ravi Zacharias, from RZIM letter dated February, 2006
For when moral convictions are reduced to arbitrary preferences, then they can no longer be debated rationally. Persuasion gives way to propaganda. Politics becomes little more than marketing. Political operators resort to emotional manipulation, using slick rhetoric and advertising techniques to bypass people’s minds and “hook” their feelings. Sound familiar?
— Nancy Pearcey, from Saving Leonardo, kindle location 231
Looking beyond the religious domain, relativism implies that the pursuit of any truth is an exercise in futility. It clearly entails the obliteration of all knowledge, including scientific, moral, and historical truth.
— Paul Copan, from True For You, But Not For Me, p. 19
It is utterly wrongheaded to say that something is “true for you but not for me.” For example, what if I think fascism is true and you think liberal democracy is equally true? Should the fascist’s repression be tolerated by the believer in liberal democracy? If not, on what grounds? Why not permit Stalinism or Satanism or Nazism? Without criteria to determine truth, this relativism fails miserably.
— Alister McGrath, quoted in True For You, But Not For Me by Paul Copan, p. 23