The idea that all beliefs are valid is generally accepted as being ‘relativism’, and relativism is certainly ‘incoherent’ and stupid.

So, too, is this article.

Well I'm firmly liberal/progressive/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, but if relativist means believing that non-liberal belief-systems are just as valid, you can count me out.

Further, nor do I believe that it is acceptable for "liberal institutions [to be] imposed on unwilling citizens". Our liberal institutions are, to a large extent, a product of a broad, liberal education system. Citizens have, by and large, accepted liberal principles because they form the basis of modern, successful, prosperous and peaceful societies. Perhaps the most important liberal principle is that of democracy - and if another liberal principle says that, for instance, there is no good reason for the government to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, but the people aren't ready to vote for such a change to the law, then democracy trumps, and it us to us to continue to argue the case and convince the people that such a change is for the good of all.

I liked this article very much. In an act of self agrandisment I paste these lines from my latest OLO article:

The only solution that we see for the moral problems that beset us is harm minimisation. Legalise the brothels and abortion, supply clean needles to drug addicts, teach minors about sexual health instead of giving them a healthy respect for what love demands. Harm reduction is the minimalist intervention that shows us that we do not have any idea of how to alleviate the problem.

We have no idea because under the dispensation of liberalism, derived from the Age of Reason, no shared premises are permitted and therefore no rational argument may occur.

Unless we agree on the connection between love and sex and procreation we will never come to a decision about abortion. Unless we agree that the dignity of women is destroyed by prostitution we will never come to an adequate decision about it. Unless we agree about the destructive influence of gambling we will continue to garner taxes from the misery of some of our citizens.

Peter Sellick

Nice to see someone, for a change, not conflating the pernicious doctrine of moral relativism with the meta-ethical dilemma of whether moral language can bear truth conditions, or be meaningfully abstracted from cultural understanding. The article simplifies though.

Normally conservatives pick a few easy strawman arguments to punctuate their claim and charge in on their straw horse of virtue thinking they've nailed moral relativism to the post of Liberalism, when they've only demonstrated their failure to grasp elementary philosophy

"[T]each minors about sexual health instead of giving them a healthy respect for what love demands"

For "instead of", substitute "along with", if you want the genuine position of most liberals.

As for "no idea how to alleviate the problem", the reality is that most liberal positions have been taken up because previous state-imposed bans on particular activities were clearly causing more harm than good, even where the intention was in the right place.

We have come to a decision about abortion: it's something we should do everything we can to reduce. The nations/states with the lowest abortion rates (Belgium, The Netherlands) are those with the most liberal laws and prevailing attitudes. Where it is illegal, not only are abortion rates higher, but there is inevitable death and suffering that occurs as women take whatever desperature measures they can when they are not in a position to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

We have also come to a decision about prostitution: we should aim for a society where no-one is forced into a position where prostitution is the only avenue available to them. In a modern, liberal, prosperous country like Australia, I would tentatively suggest that a majority of those who enter into the prostitution business do so of their own free will, fully understanding what it entails. In nations where prostitution is banned, however, it thrives as a unregulated black market where its workers have little freedom or self-worth.

Gambling on the other hand I'm inclined to agree we haven't got the balance right on. The evidence that poker-machine addiction in particular entrenches poverty and misery among a certain percentage of the population is undeniable, and given there was no black market for Pokies before they were legalised (that I'm aware of), I would tend to agree with those that are calling for much stronger regulation on this industry.