In a nation where public shootings are a common thread in the news, there is a problem.  In a world where groups terrorize in hopes of imposing their will, there is a problem.  In a society where sex is prioritized above family, most people know someone who has committed suicide, and women frequently must choose between a baby’s life and their own future, leading to the death of 53 million since 1973, there is a problem.

There must be a fundamental flaw in such a society. This flaw finds cover in words like acceptance, pluralism and tolerance. But, at the end of the day, this flaw cannot hide: it is relativism, and it is deteriorating our society.

Relativism is the philosophy that there is no truth. Everything is relative to one’s experiences, beliefs, and personal morals. Truth, then, is made up by the individual. “Truth is what you make it” and “don’t impose your morals on others” and “I guess we just see things differently” are all phrases associated with relativism. It is very approachable, very easy to understand, and very wrong.

Relativism is impractical, it contradicts itself, and it has been assimilated into our culture. Most value discussions are loaded with relativistic assertions. We see it in class discussions when someone says “Well that’s fine for you, but what is true to you may not be true for me.” Its justification: since there are so many disagreements about what is true, we should not accept anything as legitimate truth. What naturally follows this cynical perspective is the claim every belief is an assumption based on feelings. We’ve all heard the story “I just feel this person was wrong” not backed with any real justification.

I am all for pointing out logical fallacies in moral beliefs; I am not, however, for the supposition every belief is made with blind faith and without reason. This general attribution to subjectivity is the primary barrier we must hurdle in any real discussion. If we do not, we cannot even say two plus two equals four, because one could always make the argument “my truth is two plus two equals five.”

The acceptance of relativism is the refusal of discussion. Since when has the statement “Hitler was a bad man” become unjustified for “imposing one’s morals”? He attempted to exterminate the entire Jewish community—there is reason to call Hitler an immoral and bad person. All the same, there are (or should be) reasons for other beliefs—at the very least, we must discard any with blatantly flawed reasoning. My point is this: we should not just have emotional-driven beliefs, but reasonable ones, and we should not take this reasonableness for granted.

Practically, it is impossible for a functioning person to be a relativist. Everyone reading this—I hope—would agree that the killings of thousands of innocent civilians on 9/11 were immoral. However, any relativist claiming truth and morality are made up by the individual cannot do so. You see, the pure relativist would have to say “Well, they believed it was justified. Who am I to judge their action as wrong?”

Of course, it is impossible to approach life with such a mentality. In fact, by simply saying “You should not impose your morals on others,” you are imposing your morals on others; you are saying it is immoral to say what is moral; you are telling another they should not tell others what they should not do: hypocrisy at its finest.

A fine young mind would say “who are you to judge?” I think the real question is who am I not to? “Peyton Manning is good”, “I don’t deserve this grade”, and “that terrorist was wrong” are all judgments. As far as I am human, I am a judger. How quickly I should judge and in what way, I will not go into. But I will say problems arise when we start confusing the entire tree of judgments with the branch of blind ones (called prejudice), and when we confuse any moral claim with a forced belief (even if one does say you are wrong for some action—stealing, for instance).

Not only do relativistic people contradict themselves, but the philosophy of relativism, of no truth, does as well: “It is the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth.” On the one hand, it is claiming something to be absolutely true, while, at the same time, it claims there is no absolute truth. Relativism pulls the rug out from under itself; relativism claims it itself is not true; relativism is self-refuting. We now jump the hurdle of relativism by refuting its legitimacy.

Is there truth? A relativist’s response: “Well, I think that is a subjective question requiring a subjective answer. You determine if there is truth. There are infinite answers to this question.” Actually, there are two: yes or no. Relativism sides with the latter, sides with contradiction, sides with falsehood. That leaves us with only answer left: yes, there is truth.

Relativism has been at the core of many corrupt ambiguities in our societies. For example: we like to say “let us make progress” without first agreeing upon what progress looks like; we know we are working toward some good, but in the name of progress we dare not ask what that good is. By merit of its definition, the word progress is necessarily dependent on a doctrine of good—progress without such a doctrine is meaningless.

Open-mindedness is another of these vague notions. But usually what we find is not a true open-mindedness, but an abused version of such a mentality. The relativist’s open-mind is closed on its openness; it is so open that its brain has fallen out. It cannot cling to anything; it cannot make any objective statements. G. K. Chesterton said it best: “An open mind, like an open mouth, does have a purpose: and that is to close it upon something solid. Otherwise, it could end up like a city sewer, rejecting nothing.” But it is impossible for a relativist to “close” on or accept anything, because, according to the relativist, there isn’t anything. Relativism is set on its un-setness, and accepting to the point of unacceptance.

We find yet another ambiguity in tolerance. The word “tolerate” has an implied negative connotation; when I tolerate something, I first disagree with it on some level, and then I put up with it. I tolerate people who irresponsibly shout YOLO; I tolerate my dog when she poops in my room; I even tolerate relativists. I say they are all wrong in some respect, but we get along—disdain for an idea and disdain for a person are quite different. Putting up with someone whom you believe is wrong is real tolerance. By this I do not mean we should tolerate actions which harm others: you should stop a rapist if possible. I mean we should tolerate each others’ beliefs: you are wrong for advocating euthanasia, but I will not strip your right to believe in it. We should be tolerant—nay, we should be charitable.

In a time that claims morality is “in the eye of the beholder” or up to personal interpretation (or lack thereof), it is a rather absurd question to ask “Why is our society so messed up?” Really, a perfect form of this mentality would advocate no conscience at all—the definition of a psychopath. Morality is a reality if happiness and all else that humanity stands for is real.

Relativism goes unnoticed, and it corrupts. I know—I too have fallen victim to this contradiction many times in my life. But my goal here is to lose my bias and use reason; to see what makes sense and what is contradictory; to affirm what is true and deny what is false. And relativism is false; relativism is impractical; there is a truth; progress is empty without a definite good; open-mindedness does not exist for the sake of itself, but for a rational close-mindedness; tolerance does entail the disbelief in others’ beliefs; Osama Bin Laden was wrong; morality does exist objectively; there is a right; there is a wrong.

My hope is all of you sleepers have been awakened, or at-least nudged half-awake; I invite you to step out of the relativistic comfort zone and to stand up for what you believe, stand up for the objective truth, regardless if it claims that what others are doing is immoral. There is nothing wrong with claiming actions like what the Aurora shooter did was wrong. Only with this understanding can we have a rational discussion; only after removing the barrier of relativism can we dispute any matter of truth. Then and only then can we objectively state two plus two equals four. What I have done is not told you the essence of truth, but simply that there is truth, no matter how countercultural.

I write this because I care about the state of our morally-deprived society. I care because, however hidden, I know you care. So, let’s have a reasonable discussion in which we try to find the truth, rather than claiming every statement is a blind, subjective notion.

Editor’s Note: Kevin Roerty is a guest columnist for Etched In Stone.