Perspectives: Sundry, Shared, and Suicidal

Relativism, Pluralism, and the Limits of Empathy

Jul 10, 2025

In Art Nouveau style, show a solar system in which the Sun, the Earth, the Moon, and Outer Space each have a single eye. The Sun looks at the Earth. The Earth Looks at the Moon. Outer Space looks at the Moon. The Moon looks at the Sun.

Truth cannot be defined or tested by agreement with ‘the world’; for not only do truths differ for different worlds but the nature of agreement between a world apart from it is notoriously nebulous.
—Nelson Goodman, Ways of Worldmaking

People are different. This is an unavoidable fact. But navigating life among others requires discernment and, sometimes, discrimination. There are few, if any, good reasons to discriminate against others whose differences aren’t relevant to peaceful cooperation. There are plenty of reasons to discriminate based on relevant differences.

Relativists tend to disagree, with varying degrees of incoherence.

Relativism—whether epistemic, cultural, or moral—offers insights into human diversity but falls short as a framework for social harmony. Pluralism, with its bounded respect for differences, provides a more balanced approach, particularly when we consider the dangers of a relativist’s tendency toward suicidal empathy. Such an extreme emotional-cum-ideological response can destabilize societies when they grow into egregores.

Let’s examine the shortcomings of relativism, the strengths of pluralism, and the psychological risks of unchecked empathy.

Three Faces of Relativism

Relativism, in its various forms, seeks not just to explain the diversity of human thought and behavior but also to present a normative posture.

Epistemic relativism claims that knowledge is shaped and determined by differing perspectives, offering multiple ways of understanding the world.
Cultural relativism posits that traditions and values are inherently tied to cultural groups, making judgments of right and wrong dependent on the particular contexts in which they are applied.
Moral relativism takes context dependency further by arguing that morality is entirely subjective, determined solely by an individual’s personal perspective.

While these frameworks highlight the importance of diverse perspectives, they are incomplete and potentially problematic. By treating all perspectives, cultural practices, or moral judgments as equally valid, relativism risks dissolving any foundation for universal values or social cohesion. Many forms of relativism take positive claims about diverse cultures or individual perspectives and transform them into normative claims.

For example, cultural and moral relativists can excuse harmful practices under the guise of cultural or personal justification. Meanwhile, epistemic relativism might validate two or more contradictory truth claims without any independent mechanism for reconciling them.

Relativists often adopt a unhealthy dogmatic stance, particularly in political and social contexts where their insistence on unbounded tolerance can lead to intellectual rigidity, resembling the unhealthy "Green" stage of Spiral Dynamics.

The Case for Bounded Pluralism

While readiness to recognize alternative worlds may be liberating, a willingness to welcome all worlds builds none. A broad mind is no substitute for hard work.
—Nelson Goodman, Ways of Worldmaking

Pluralism offers a compelling alternative by acknowledging and respecting differences while establishing clear boundaries. Unlike relativism’s open-ended acceptance, pluralists tolerates diverse cultural and moral values only insofar as they align with core social virtues such as nonviolence, integrity, compassion, stewardship, and rationality. Indeed, pluralism is the sixth social virtue. These act as a framework to ensure that diversity does not devolve into conflict or undermine societal unity.

For instance, a pluralist might respect a community’s unique traditions but draw the line at violent or irrational practices, such as honor killings or dangerous medical quackery. This bounded approach avoids the relativist’s trap of excusing harmful behaviors while still fostering mutual respect. Pluralism, in essence, strikes a balance: it celebrates diversity but insists on a shared commitment to virtues that sustain social harmony.

The Perils of Suicidal Empathy

Relativism’s weaknesses become particularly evident when paired with what psychologists and philosophers call suicidal empathy. In this phenomenon, individuals experience such intense emotional connection to others’ suffering that it becomes psychologically overwhelming, self-destructive, and sometimes socially destructive.

This extreme form of empathy manifests in several ways:

Absorbing Others’ Perceived Pain. Individuals don’t merely sympathize; they feel others’ suffering as if it were their own, often with equal or greater intensity.
Loss of Emotional Boundaries. The inability to distinguish one’s own emotions from those of others erodes psychological resilience and inner locus of control.
Emotional Self-Harm. The empathetic response becomes so consuming that it animates dangerous behavior or threatens mental health and well-being.
Overwhelming Responsibility. Individuals feel an impossible burden to alleviate any suffering they encounter, leading to emotional exhaustion and despair.
Empathic Blinders. Those afflicted can fail to grant personal responsibility or see wrongdoing in perceived victims.

Suicidal empathy is particularly prevalent among sensitive individuals, those in helping professions, or people with histories of personal trauma. When combined with relativism’s unbounded tolerance, suicidal empathy can amplify harm by encouraging individuals to absorb and excuse destructive behaviors.

For example, a relativist might feel compelled to empathize with a group dedicated to harmful cultural practices, such as child marriage or killing homosexuals, to the point of emotional paralysis or denial. They become unable to challenge the practices for fear of imposing their values, say, as a “colonizer.” Yet as self-annointed allies, they are unable see themselves as potential victims of the very objects of their suicidal empathy.

Pluralism as Safeguard

Pluralism, with its implicit commitment to social virtues, provides a safeguard against the excesses of relativism and suicidal empathy. By setting boundaries, pluralism allows individuals to empathize with others’ experiences while maintaining emotional and ethical clarity. Compassion, as a social virtue, encourages understanding without requiring individuals to absorb others’ pain to the point of social- or self-destruction. Rationality ensures one’s empathy is tempered by critical thinking, preventing the kind of dogmatic relativism that justifies harmful practices.

Moreover, pluralism as a practiced virtue fosters resilience by encouraging individuals to prioritize their mental health and well-being. Rather than feeling responsible for alleviating all suffering, or to choose sides in distant conflicts, pluralists recognize that their capacity to help is finite and best directed toward actions that align with shared values and virtues. This approach not only protects one from the psychological toll of suicidal empathy but also strengthens societal unity by promoting mutual respect and reciprocity within reasonable limits.

The Lesson

Relativism, while valuable for recognizing diverse perspectives, fails to provide a framework for resolving conflicts or maintaining social cohesion. Its tendencies to dogmatism and disunity, as well as its attraction to suicidal empathy, recommend caution.

Pluralism, by contrast, presents a balanced solution: Embrace diversity while anchoring it in social virtues that prevent harm and promote unity. In a world where empathy can both heal and harm, pluralism opens a path forward—one that respects differences, protects individuals, and fosters a sustainable, harmonious society.

Outside the pluralism’s bounds, one will find her enemies.