Formy elsewhere wrote the following:
The problem with relativism, the idea that there is no right and wrong, is that it is somewhat contradictory. A person who believes in universal tolerance is OBLIGED to tolerate people who are completely intolerant (Nazis, Communists, Capitalists, reactionaries, terrorists). If a relativist pronounces judgement on ANYBODY for not being tolerant, then he's guilty of wanting/upholding a universal moral standard- which is completely contradictory to his belief.
Having heard this a few times, I prepared a response, as I always like to know where I stand on any issue. This is mostly written for myself so I have my view of the world at hand should I ever need it, but read through it if you will.
I do not believe in a God, and therefore I do not believe in any absolute morality. There is no absolute good and evil. Instead, what is good and bad is subjective and each person has their own views.
What also exists is what is good or bad for society. Obviously, society requires rules, such as do not murder, rape or thieve, or it would collapse. Additionally, it is good for society that each person should be allowed to lead a happy life through following their own subjective beliefs, rather than having the views of another thrust upon them, provoking resentment and discontent with society.
It is a myth that liberals have to tolerate everybody. Nothing obliges us to do so. Tolerance must be reciprocal; it is nonsensical to tolerate somebody intolerant who seeks to thrust their views upon another, thus decreasing their freedom of action and thought.
In short, people should be able to do whatever they want, unless that action intrudes on the ability of others to do as they want.
This is very important. Tolerance must be two-way. I will tolerate a Muslim or a Christian despite being anti-religious, if they do not oblige me to follow their beliefs. When a Muslim tries to blow me up, or a Christian to ban gay marriage, this is tyranny intruding on the rights of others that cannot be tolerated.
