Moral relativism is often portrayed as ‘realism’ or an ‘even-handed’ approach to the world.
This is a convenient cover for what amounts to an acceptance of ‘might-makes-right,’ and the promotion of a world where the strong can endlessly take advantage of the weak.
As history shows, there is nothing realistic or even-handed about the consequences of the moral relativist approach, as it empowers dictators and authoritarian states, which must then be stopped at a far greater cost.
Moral relativism has often proven to be among the greatest allies of fascist and communist regimes, both of which used the flaws of liberal democratic nations to muddy the waters and reduce initial opposition to the horrific crimes they committed.
Those regimes were able to point to real examples of corruption, mistreatment of minorities, government secrecy, and more, to paint a picture of democratic nations as hypocritical and thus unfit to judge ‘different types’ of governments.
Of course, fascist and communist regimes proved to be orders of magnitude more corrupt than democratic governments, took mistreatment to the extreme and committed genocide and mass murder of minority groups as a matter of state policy, and hid everything they possibly could from the public. And to top it all off, they did so without their people having any chance of changing the government once the regime was in place.
This is why even a deeply flawed democracy is more legitimate than a dictatorship or other form of authoritarian state.
And this is why authoritarian states that launch aggressive wars conduct those wars much differently – and much less humanely – than democratic states that are defending themselves.
This brings us to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.
Among some on the far-right and far-left of the political spectrum, Russia and Ukraine are held to be moral equals. Worse, some on the far-right openly align with Russia, viewing its brutal authoritarian system and ‘take what you want through violence’ ethos to be worth emulating. This has led to a significant increase in moral relativism, including among many who once denounced it. Of course, this has been helped along by Russian propaganda, given Russia’s keen interest in weakening support for Ukraine in democratic nations.
Unfortunately, the U.S. President is among those who have taken a moral relativist approach to the conflict, and even recently threatened to hit both Russia and Ukraine with sanctions:
“Speaking in the Oval Office alongside visiting German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the US president likened Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin to two fighting children.
“Sometimes you’re better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart,” Mr Trump said, adding that he would be “very very tough” if neither side was willing to stop the fighting after Mr Merz urged him to put more pressure on Moscow.
“It could be on both countries to be honest. You know, it takes two to tango, but we’re going to be very tough, whether it’s Russia or anybody else.”
This is moral relativism, and it is deeply wrong. Russia invaded Ukraine, not the other way around. Ukraine is a democracy, flawed as it may be, like many fledgling democratic nations at the beginning, while Russia is a ruthless authoritarian dictatorship that has been led by the same person for over two decades (Putin’s stint as ‘Prime Minister’ was simply a facade to get around term limits).
To sanction Ukraine for fighting to survive, while working to weaken sanctions on Russia (as Trump is currently trying to do), reflects a worldview of someone who struggles to distinguish between right and wrong, or who simply doesn’t care to do so, and it’s a worldview we should not want to emulate.
Targeting the military vs targeting civilians
Another of the many clear examples of the moral gulf separating Ukraine and Russia came this week. Ukraine’s Operation Spider’s Web was a masterstroke of intelligence and innovation. And it exclusively focused on military targets. Here’s how the Institute for the Study of War summed it up:
“Ukraine conducted a large-scale and simultaneous series of drone strikes against multiple air bases in Russia on June 1. Sources within Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) told various media outlets that the SBU conducted widespread first-person view (FPV) drone strikes that struck four air bases in Russia.[1] The SBU sources reported that Ukrainian forces struck Belaya Air Base in Irkutsk Oblast; Olenya Air Base in Murmansk Oblast; Dyagilevo Air Base in Ryazan Oblast; and Ivanovo Air Base in Ivanovo Oblast. The SBU sources confirmed that Ukrainian drone operators struck 41 Russian strategic aircraft, including A-50 long-range radar detection aircraft and Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 strategic bombers – fixed-wing aircraft that Russia uses to detect Ukrainian air defenses and launch cruise missiles against Ukraine.”
Since then, Russia has launched missile strikes against Ukraine, including civilian targets. Three people were killed, and 49 were wounded, with the toll likely to rise. In other parts of Ukraine, homes and schools were hit.
This fits the pattern of Russia’s war against Ukraine, with Russia often focused on spreading death and instilling fear and terror among Ukrainian civilians. As noted by Human Rights Watch, Russia has repeatedly violated the laws of war by using drones against civilians:
“The 93-page report, “Hunted From Above: Russia’s Use of Drones to Attack Civilians in Kherson, Ukraine” and an accompanying web feature, document how Russian forces appear to be deliberately or recklessly carrying out drone strikes against civilians and civilian objects with these mostly inexpensive commercially available drones. The attacks spread terror among the civilian population and cause them to fear leaving their homes, and have caused the depopulation of the two areas being targeted in Kherson.
“Russian drone operators are able to track their targets, with high-resolution video feeds, leaving little doubt that the intent is to kill, maim, and terrify civilians,” said Belkis Wille, associate crisis, conflict and arms director at Human Rights Watch. “They exemplify why the international community needs to support all avenues of accountability for victims of Russian war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine.”
During a recent meeting with U.S. President Trump in the oval office, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz effectly explained the ethical difference at play here:
Chancellor Merz 🇩🇪 did it well when he laid out the facts about 🇷🇺 and its war against 🇺🇦 in the Oval Office yesterday. No other European leader has dared to do it as explicitly as he did. pic.twitter.com/6g9GxapV3f
Let’s also challenge the idea that Russia’s strikes were ‘retaliation’ for Ukraine’s Operation Spider’s Web. Russia – not Ukraine – started the war. Ukraine struck Russian strategic bombers, bombers that have been repeatedly used in attacks against Ukraine, including attacks against Ukrainian civilians. What Ukraine does in a defensive capacity is a response to Russia’s invasion, and Russia cannot credibly claim they are ‘retaliating’ when they are the ones who initiated the conflict. After all, the war could end immediately if Russia simply withdrew its troops, yet Russia refuses to do so.
Retaining our soul
When confronted with evil, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine certainly qualifies, we lose a part of our soul if we slip into moral relativism. It may seem the easier path at first, but it takes a toll in the long run.
Both as individuals and as a nation, it is imperative to see right and wrong, and act upon them to the greatest extent possible. For Canada, that means that while we may be able to single-handedly save Ukraine from Russia, we can ramp up domestic artillery production to help supply Ukraine, we can form deeper partnerships with Ukrainian defence firms, we can support efforts to achieve a peace that is both lasting and just, and we can continue to explain to all who will listen why Ukraine has the clear moral high ground, and why Ukraine is fully justified in fighting to survive as an independent nation.
Spencer Fernando
Image – YouTube
If this piece left you clearer than it found you, that's the point. I write for readers who want to think past the week, to see the longer pattern beneath the daily story, and to come away steadier rather than more agitated.
That longer view gets built somewhere. On Patreon, essay by essay, I'm constructing The Long Work, a body of analysis meant to outlast the news cycle that prompted it. The readers there make it possible. No subsidies, no strings. The work answers to them.
$8/month to read it as it's built, and to have a hand in building it.