The Self-Refuting Nature of Relativism

I've spent the last couple of weeks discussing moral relativism and the redefining of tolerance. Those who have followed along will have seen for themselves just how illogical (dare I say silly?) these postmodern views are. Those who hold these views do so uncritically--had they thought very deeply about them, they would quickly have come up against the contradictory and self-refuting nature of these sorts of claims.

Lest this is not obvious, let me relate a sample dialogue, one that begins with a ubiquitous, almost-daily-heard assertion. (We'll designate the asserter "PM" for "Postmodernist" and his interlocutor "Oddball," a nickname for "Independent, Critical Thinker.")

PM: It's wrong to judge another person!

Oddball: Then why are you judging me?

Or, as a slight variant,

PM: Nobody should push their morality on any one else.

Oddball: That seems to be your morality. Why are you pushing it?

Again, there are two contrary views here. Either moral relativism is an accurate account of the world in which we live or moral objectivism is true. And because relativism has the many fatal flaws about which I've been posting, philosophers are virtually unanimous in rejecting it. That is, the people who think logically recognize the bankruptcy of the postmodern position regarding morality and tolerance. This includes not only Christians (and other theists) but philosophers of every metaphysical stance. (Christians and other theists attribute the objective moral code to a transcendent Lawgiver, while atheists ground it in evolution or human nature.)

Nonetheless, moral relativism is the spirit of the age, and is taught in public schools and universities, through television, radio, and movies, and is accepted uncritically by most of our culture, much to our shame and further ignorance.