Moral Relativists Aren't

David French makes a very astute observation about relativism at the National Review Phi Beta Cons blog (hat tip to Constitutionally Correct)

Our colleges are not overrun with either moral or cultural relativism. The problem is the opposite — moral and cultural absolutism that is occasionally so extreme that it would make a Bob Jones theology professor blush.

It's a point I've made before, that no one is truly a relativist, and certainly not a moral relativist. Were that the case, then I could go up to one, steal his wallet, and when he protested, he would immediately lapse into reverent compliance when I told him, "Stealing may be wrong for you, but not for me." I should also be able to do the wild thang with a "moral relativists" wife and receive his admiring acquiescence with the defense that, "Adultery may be wrong for you, my good man, but not for me."

But it doesn't work that way, does it? Of course not. Because liberals who claim to believe in moral relativism DON'T REALLY; they just believe in it when it extends to what THEY want to do, and what doesn't bother them. When it comes to things that affect them (their property or relationships), or things that they don't like (condemnation of immorality, condemnation of wealth redistribution, etc.), suddenly they believe in things that are "universally wrong."

...academic relativism is a tactic, not a substantive position. When a student of orthodox faith or a person of traditional belief presents a position, they are often countered with the classic relativistic verbal shrug ( i.e. "that may be true for you but not for me"), but when the shoe is on the other foot — when the issue is dear to the heart of the academic — the position could not be more absolute. Insults like "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobe" do not come from relativism, but from absolutism.