Moral Relativism - Murder & Racism are always wrong. Not sometimes...

A follow up from my post last week

I wanted to follow up on my post from last week, Return to Real Science, that talked about “Relativism”. Two things happened since then that I thought perfectly illustrated the problem with “Moral Relativism” or “Moral Inversion”.

I posted the following writing on Facebook:

“I am appalled that many people, including journalists like Taylor Lorenz (Washington Post & New York Times), are celebrating the murder of an insurance company CEO. Taylor posted a screenshot of another health insurance company making a change and her post said: “And people wonder why we want these executives dead”.

This is the problem with moral relativism.

For background I shared that my article this week explained relativism and included a quote from the article:

“Relativism is the idea that all opinions are equally valid, no matter how ridiculous. For example, certain frameworks might argue that math is oppressive because it emphasizes correct answers. But without objective truth, how do we build bridges, design computers, or cure diseases? Imagine an engineer saying, “My truth is that this bridge will hold up,” even if the math proves otherwise. Relativism doesn’t lead to progress; it leads to chaos.”

We’re seeing the damage this mindset causes right now. People are justifying their celebration of murder by claiming it’s acceptable because of the CEO’s role in denying health insurance claims.

This selective moral reasoning is rooted in relativism—the belief that morality can shift based on context or personal feelings. It replaces universal principles, like the inherent wrongness of murder, with subjective justifications tied to anger or perceived injustice.

But here’s the danger: if morality becomes entirely relative, it opens the door to chaos.

Today, it’s celebrating a CEO’s murder; tomorrow, it could be justifying anything that feels right to someone at the time.

Relativism undermines the very foundations of ethical reasoning and erodes trust in the principles that hold society together.

We cannot allow ourselves to be swept away by this mindset.

It’s imperative to reject moral relativism and return to universal principles of reason and evidence, principles that ensure justice, fairness, and accountability for all, regardless of our emotions or personal grievances.

Murder is wrong.”

After I posted this on Facebook, one of my very smart and well intentioned friends respectfully criticized my article saying that I was incorrect. We had a lengthy debate and I know he has the best of intentions, but this part of the interaction perfectly illustrated the problem with this mindset.

He suggested that my post was alienating people.

So I responded with the message:

“I respectfully suggest it may not be me who is alienating people. Let me offer an example: Could you answer a seemingly simple question with a simple yes or no: “Is it acceptable for race to be a consideration in hiring, grading, or discipline?”

His response was: “That’s a trick question and you know it. Yes, it’s acceptable in select situations. And no, it isn’t in all.”

That answer shocks most people that have been out of academia for a while or who haven’t been paying attention to this new line of thinking. But it is a perfect illustration of moral relativism. It couldn’t be more clear.

This new line of thinking has convinced incredibly smart and well intentioned people that racism and murder are okay in certain “select situations”.

I reject this view completely and I hope that we all will.

It is never appropriate to judge someone based on the color of their skin. This is a moral truth. This is the basis of the Civil Rights Movement and the Civil Rights Act.

But sadly, this type of thinking has pervaded almost all of our powerful institutions in America. Due to the selective moral relativism, organizations like schools, companies, non-profits will engage in a practice called “Hiring with an equity lens”. This activity quite literally encourages the organization to make hiring decisions with an eye towards considering race. This practice is illegal and immoral, even though it is done with the best of intentions, it still does not justify the practice and it never will. We must reject this kind of moral relativism and return to return to objective, universal principles that respect individual rights and emphasize personal responsibility. Hiring decisions, and all organizational practices, must be based on competence, character, and contribution, not superficial attributes like race or gender. When we deviate from this approach, we erode the foundations of trust and accountability that hold society together.

This is not about intention but about outcomes. Good intentions cannot justify practices that undermine equality under the law and create resentment. History has proven that when people are judged by their abilities and achievements, rather than group identity, innovation and prosperity follow.

To restore integrity to our institutions, we must demand a relentless commitment to standards that transcend political fads or ideological movements. This means rejecting any practice that prioritizes group identity over individual capability and insisting on a meritocratic approach that rewards excellence and effort.

The way forward is simple but not easy. It requires a willingness to stand against popular but destructive ideas and to reaffirm timeless truths about human dignity and agency. Our schools, businesses, and nonprofits must lead by example, building cultures where personal responsibility and achievement are the sole measures of success.

Definitions

Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Racism: the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.