Why do critics say ethical relativism does not logically require tolerance?

Critics argue that ethical relativism does not logically necessitate tolerance because tolerance itself is merely another value, one that individuals or societies may choose to reject. From a relativist perspective, there is no objective, culture-neutral standard to establish that tolerance is inherently good or universally required.1

Because the theory posits that moral beliefs are relative to social standards or individual preferences rather than objective truths, it provides no foundation to claim that tolerance is a moral obligation. If a society’s moral code does not include tolerance—or if it explicitly approves of intolerant practices like genocide—the relativist framework offers no objective basis to criticize that society’s stance. Consequently, critics maintain that only an absolutist position, which asserts that certain values are objectively valid, can provide a logical foundation for the moral necessity of tolerance.1