Wrong in Name Only

I believe very few people in this world are true moral relativists.  Most people are not okay with the idea that what they believe to be right and wrong carries no more weight than a psychopath's ideas regarding morality.  A few people are.  Someone who does is a very interesting person and is a true nihilist in every sense of the word.

But there are quite a few atheists out there that claim to be moral relativists and are not using that self-description accurately.  They would cry foul over and over if a state or world religion was imposed on them by popular demand, and would probably go to the grave defending how right they are.  Someone who truly believes in relativism would not behave in such a dedicated manner.  A person who believes that their opinion carries THAT much weight, particularly more weight than an entire population, must believe that the entire universe agrees with them.  This can only be the case if morality is objective.  Moral objectivists believe certain actions on this earth are inherently wrong, not just wrong in name only.

I am unsure why more atheists don't describe themselves as moral objectivists even though that term would be more accurate to all but the most blatant nihilists.  I think many atheists are worried that categorizing an intangible thing that can't be measured like morality as an actual real thing is too unscientific and makes them worried that such an action would begin to resemble a religious practice.  Sam Harris has been trying to resolve this and has been actively trying to promote moral objectivity in the atheist community.  He sees the logical fallacy in trying to claim some moral beliefs are more accurate than others while holding on to the relativist title, and that's why he rejects moral relativism.

I'm a moral objectivist and a believer in a supernatural entity that dictates morality.  So I don't have to wrestle with the moral relativism stuff.  Instead I have to wrestle with issues like why did God pick the things he picked as wrong, and where does God come from and things like that.  Some of those things I don't worry too much about, because I know no matter what I believe I'll have to reach an irreducible axiom at some point that can't be further justified and just has to be accepted.  Atheists have the easiest time of this because they have the fewest axioms to justify.

Truth Is Not Mighty When It Is Meaningless

There are a few mathematical truths out there that seem to have no real meaning.  You cannot properly construct a regular polygon with 65,538 sides using a compass and straightedge alone, but you CAN properly construct a regular polygon with 65,537 sides using a compass and straightedge alone .  It's true.  But not too many people would find any meaning in that statement.  This would imply that certain truths exist that are, well.... unimportant truths.  I suppose you could also call these weak truths, or truths that are not mighty, because they lack any real significance it seems.

I often run into a lot of ideas on the internet that imply that everything in the world has no real inherent significance and the only significance that exists is in the eye of the beholder.  I imagine if you suggest that nothing has any significance, that would imply that truth itself has no significance.  Why would it?  Why would you make an exception for just that one thing?  Why should I have to assign meaning to that value just because you do?  If you say significance is relative, you can't say my holding truth as insignificant is wrong and your holding truth as significant is right.  Truth is weakened beyond repair when there is no inherent significance behind it.

So the only way to say that truth is important in ALL frames of reference is to hold that there's at least one thing in this world that has inherent significance.  If that's the case, how in the world did truth become the sole attainer of the lofty status of having inherent and not assigned value?  Very difficult to explain.  I turn to God for that.