"What makes a man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"-- "Captain Zapp Brannigan,"Futurama

有相当多的哲学论证支持和反对伦理相对主义。然而，我怀疑这种论证与使人们成为伦理相对主义者或反相对主义者的原因无关。(无论否定相对论是什么，我们都缺乏一个真正令人满意的术语。对于非哲学家来说，“现实主义”的含义是错误的。“你的观点有什么‘现实’可言?”相对主义对我来说似乎更‘现实’!”我认为“现实主义”也会给人一种错误的印象，即要成为一个反相对主义者，你必须是一个柏拉图主义者。“客观主义”将是一个恰当的术语，只是它已经被伪哲学家崇拜的兰迪亚人所使用。)好了，回到正题。如果哲学论证对一个人的相对主义或现实主义的信仰影响不大，那什么影响呢?

When I get into an extended discussion of this issue, it becomes clear to me that ethical relativists generally think that relativism is a more open-minded view. Realism, they think, is the view of people who are judgmental and narrow-minded. Realists, on the other hand, seem to think that relativists are morally wishy-washy. "How can you really believe that Nazism is wrong if you're a relativist? And if you don't really believe Nazism is wrong, how will you oppose it?"

当被追问时，我的经验是哲学现实主义者和相对主义者会放弃这些承诺……至少名义上。(The realist will admit, "Well, I suppose youdooppose Hitler, in your own subjective way." The relativist will say, "Okay, I guess youcould但我有过一种奇怪的经历，就是和别人争论，让他们承认现实主义和教条主义之间没有联系，然后听他们在后来的谈话中把这个主张作为显性或隐性的假设提出。

I once read an unpublished study that attempted to establish an empirical connection between a commitment to ethical relativism and open-mindedness. There were alotof methodological problems with the study, though. For one, the author noted a correlation between flexibility in solving mathematical problems and a tendency to believe ethical relativism, and tried to draw the conclusion from that. However, just because someone is flexible, creative, and "open minded" in mathematical contexts, that does not entail that he or she isethically思想开放的。(晶体管的发明者之一威廉·肖克利(William Shockley)是一个臭名昭著的种族主义者，也是种族优生学的倡导者。)尽管如此，我认为有趣的是，这项研究的作者使用了他的工作假设，声称伦理相对主义者会更开明。

My own experience has been that people who advocate most loudly for ethical relativism are generally not open-minded. Indeed, in my years of teaching, relativist students have been positively rabid in rejecting anything that challenges their views.

What about the claim that realists tend to be dogmatic? My experience has been that if people continually employ the rhetoric of "facts," "evidence," and "proof" in discussion, they are generally extremely dogmatic. Troubled actor Dustin Diamond ("Screech" from the showSaved by the Bell) was on a weight-loss reality show where he informed his doctor that his views could not be refuted because they were based on the unshakeable power of rational proof: among Screech's "rational" beliefs were that he did not need to eat less or exercise more to lose weight. Maybe it is the "proof" part that is the root of the trouble. "Proof" is a weasel word in philosophy, which typically confuses more than it illuminates. There is really no proof outside of mathematics and formal logic, and some would argue that we do not find absolute certainty even there. In any case, I don't find most realists to be dogmatic. Then again, I might be subject to confirmation bias, since, like most people, I find it easier to sympathize with people I agree with.

也许我们需要更务实地处理这个问题。也许我们应该只关注那些真正困扰我们的恶习(教条主义和冷漠)，并尽量避免它们。