The issue is in defining objective reality.
We could say that the moral relativist shares the same biological baseline as everybody else, and therefor even their faulty philosophy/actions stems from the same biological impetus, albiet an unhealthy or crude expression of that objective reality. But if we were to attempt to define that baseline, how would we delineate our own subjective inference from objective reality? How could we arrive at a more robust understanding of Truth if everything that we say can be understood only as a “Matter of opinion”?
The simple thing to do is to quantify the consequences of actions.
Say for example we have Action A and Action B, both operating off of a similar intention, say sexual gratification in this instance (As this is a common topic). We can see clearly which behavior is immoral and which is moral based on what occurs as a result of them.
Action A is monogamous and vanilla sexual interaction with a committed life partner.
The action does not generally result in disease, usually results in fertility, healthy hormone/chemical expression, etc etc.
Action B is a polygamous and “kinky” sexual interaction with a stranger.
This action increases the risk of an STD, a long list of impersonal relationships that don’t last, no children or children born into the pre-existing dysfunction, among many many other failures.
Granted we can also see that even Action A can have their shortcomings, but the risk factor is dramatically increased in the case of Action B, and it is therefor easier to identify and rectify what shortcomings are present in Action A then to simply deem Action A and B equally as permissible simply because both have faults.
Most immorality is justified like this:
“Some heterosexual couples have dysfunction, therefor homosexuality is just as moral.”
“Some migrants don’t commit crime, therefor all migrants are good.”
“8% of abortions pertain to Rape and Pregnancy complications, therefor the other 92% of abortions are moral.”
“White people also commit crimes, therefor Blacks and Brown people aren’t as prone to criminality.”
A society based in hyper individuation must predicate its existence on pandering to statistical exceptions, for any general statement would contradict both the entire social framework, as well as the psychological nature of the individual, who upon realizing his biological affinity with some generality would have to approach an existential crisis in order to rectify this issue, making short term mental wellness appear more ideal than the long term well being of that persons faction simply because they don’t wish to confront their own actions.
The moral to be devised here is that even if we are too weak to confront ourselves, we can surround ourselves with other people who will hold us accountable for our behavior, and by so doing rediscover that ancient sense of community and belonging that we once took for granted.
Rather than our rhetoric being focused on nothing but vitriol and animosity, we have to remind those of our particular people that they are a part of this collective, be it a Race or a Nation, or even a general sense of Humanity. We can stand firm against wrongdoing whilst also being compassionate, the same way you would confront a friend who is addicted to heroin. You don’t excuse or justify his addiction, but you throw his ass in a shower and force him to wash off the filth, that after that layer of crud has been removed he too might help to clean up the world a little.
One hand washes the other.
