Last Updated on March 17, 2026
What happens when we treat morality as a mere matter of perspective? From a shocking interview defending the “upsides” of horrific crimes to the casual dismissal of animal suffering in a comment section, moral relativism is everywhere. This article dives into the dangerous logic of subjective ethics and the linguistic tools—like “beef” and “pork”—used to mask sentient individuals. By contrasting relativism with moral realism, we explore why recognizing objective harm is the first step toward true justice. If suffering matters, then morality cannot be imaginary—it must extend to every being capable of feeling pain.
A Question of Perception
Recently, I came across a video that genuinely made me pause. The host asked his guest a question that most people would assume has a very clear answer.
“Do you think people who are raped attracted that for themselves? What about children who are raped by pedophiles?”
The guest responded calmly that all these things we label good or bad depend on who you take sides with. According to him, people simply react to situations based on their own moral framework. When the host pushed back and said that beating or sexually assaulting a child is evil, the guest replied that it is only evil in that person’s perception.
At one point, he even said there can be “upsides” to horrific events. Including the murder of children. The host looked uncomfortable. I was too.
The Dangerous Logic of Moral Relativism
Because what we were witnessing was not just a strange exchange. It was a perfect example of something that shows up everywhere today, especially online: moral relativism.
Moral relativism is the idea that right and wrong are not objective truths. According to this view, morality is simply something humans create. Culture, upbringing, and personal beliefs shape what people consider right or wrong. From that perspective, there is no universal moral standard. At first glance, this can sound thoughtful. Almost philosophical.
But when you follow the logic to its conclusion, it quickly becomes disturbing. If morality is nothing more than preference, then slavery was never actually wrong. It was simply accepted in some societies and rejected in others. Genocide becomes a matter of perspective. Child abuse becomes something that is only wrong depending on who is judging it.
Most people instinctively reject those conclusions because deep down we understand that certain harms are not just matters of opinion or “preferences.” They are wrong. This is the difference between moral relativism and moral realism.
Moral realism is the idea that some actions are objectively wrong regardless of culture or personal beliefs. Causing unnecessary harm, especially to vulnerable beings, violates a moral truth that exists independently of human preferences.
From Preference to Exploitation
Interestingly, people who claim morality is subjective rarely behave as though they truly believe it. If someone harms their child or assaults someone they love, they do not calmly say, “Well, that is just their moral perspective.” They stop the harm. They stop the harm because they recognize that a universal ethical violation is occurring.
What struck me further about the video was what happened in the comment section afterward. Under my comment discussing moral relativism, someone replied by saying that some people believe eating meat is wrong, but that this is simply a preference. According to her, if someone disagrees with eating animals, that does not make the act wrong; it only means they personally prefer something different.
She also casually referred to pigs as “pork.” That moment perfectly captured the entire problem.
“Pork” is not a being. A pig is. Words like pork, beef, and poultry are linguistic tools that create distance between the animal and the product. They are the vocabulary of speciesism—the belief that one species is more important than another. They allow people to discuss flesh without thinking about the individual who once inhabited that body. Language transforms a living, breathing animal into a commodity. Once the individual disappears from the conversation, the moral question becomes easier to dismiss.
Why Moral Truth Matters
If morality is just preference, then exploitation becomes preference too. But the moment we remove the euphemisms and look honestly at what is happening, the conversation changes. A pig is not “pork” any more than a cow is “beef” or a chicken is “nuggets.” These are sentient animals capable of fear, pain, and social bonds. Their lives are ended for something humans do not actually need.
Suddenly, the issue becomes a moral question: Is it wrong to cause unnecessary harm when we don’t have to?
Moral relativism attempts to dissolve that question entirely by declaring morality imaginary. But that argument collapses the moment we apply it consistently. If morality is merely preference, then there is no meaningful way to condemn violence, exploitation, or cruelty anywhere.
Fortunately, most people know that conclusion does not hold. Morality is not imaginary. It is simply the recognition that the suffering of others matters. And once we accept that, the conversation inevitably leads us back to the animals.
The use of adjectives… promotes a conceptual misfocusing that relativizes these acts of violence. Additionally… our attention is continuously framed so that the absent referents—women, animals—do not appear.
— Carol J. Adams, Author of The Sexual Politics of Meat
Like this read? Check out Relationship with Yourself: How to Build Healthy Relationships with Yourself to explore the many other ways to improve your relationship with yourself.
Brought to you by The Human Experience.
Cristina C is a Romanian-born abolitionist vegan writer whose work centers animal liberation, feminism, and ethical accountability. Her perspective is shaped by migration, resilience, and a commitment to confronting normalized harm.
