Let's consider next Friedrich Nietzsche's claim on "On the Genealogy of Morals": "According to slave morality, therefore, the 'evil person' arouses fear; according to master morality, it is precisely the 'good person' who arouses and wishes to arouse fear, whilst the 'bad man' is felt to be contemptible."
 |
| Does mental illness strengthen? (The ill Nietzsche, 1899) |
So, although you do disagree with Nietzsche, you must acknowledge he is right if you are an ethical Relativist or Subjectivist. "I do whatever I want", shout Nietzscheans. (However, it's controversial whether that opinion was really Nietzsche's personal opinion. May be it was a test for the future people.)
"Oh!", you shout and tell, "It's morally right to cut one's hand if one writes something bad about people and its loving ruler." But, but, but! You must accept your hand is also cut, if the ruler wants so. It's not fair to exclude yourself, if a group is treated roughly by some culture. Put yourself in a group!
An ethical absolute could be such a principle: Persons are always both agents and objects. When considering on goodness or badness of acts, put yourself too in the situation of human beings who are done something.
If you claim that cultural relativism is true, you must accept what other culture do to you because from their perspective it is right to treat you some way, although you blaim it is wrong. In general, when somebody says to be a Relativist, he means only "I am allowed to do in this way". Listen, for example, to governments led by an ideology - or to the radio.
