In Chapter 3, the author addresses a point that I've been grappling with for some time. On page 33 he states that "one reason that people sometimes favor relativism - even simple relativism - over objective theories of truth is the sense that that relativism encourages greater toleration..." Lynch then goes on to write that it "is a confusion to think that belief in objective truth necessarily implies a lack of respect for other ways of life and other types of belief. The cause of intolerance is not objectivity but dogmatism" (33).

Alright, let's take the example of slavery, which I think we can all agree is "bad," to use a parsimonious and concise term that we can probably all agree on. And for the sake of engaging in a discussion based on mutual definitions, let's define slavery as the ownership of another's labor as well as extensive control over other aspects of their lives (really a terrible definition). In the pre-colonial societies of Africa, slavery was sometimes built into the very fabric of certain societies. In some places it was a brutal practice...in other areas, slavery was viewed as a means by which to avoid starving and sometimes advantageous to other types of work. As Lynch pointed out in Chapter 2, "certainty" is probably dangerous and unattainable. If one were to grant that slavery in 13th, 14th and maybe 15th century Africa (we're talking about indigenous slavery here) was a vastly different practice than that of slavery in the US and was less harsh (but was nonetheless irrefutably slavery), where are we left with regard to this relativism business? Are we justified in swooping in and judging these people?