Shitlord Philosophy So, I'm a philosophy student and came across this today because I'm writing a paper on relativism. This could very well be shitty philosophy - I'm not that far along yet in my studies. If any of you are interested in that sort of thing, though, here's some good copypasta from the Stanford Encyclopedia: Wong (1984) has argued that at least two different approaches to morality may be found in the world: a virtue-centered morality that emphasizes the good of the community, and a rights-centered morality that stresses the value of individual freedom. Virtue-centered tends to be more of FPH's wheelhouse, while rights-centered morality is embraced by HAES. Wong argued that more than one morality may be true, but there are limits on which moralities are true. The first point is a form of metaethical relativism: It says one morality may be true for one society and a conflicting morality may be true for another society. Hence, there is no one objectively correct morality for all societies. The second point, however, is a concession to moral objectivism. It acknowledges that objective factors concerning human nature and the human situation should determine whether or not, or to what extent, a given morality could be one of the true ones. The mere fact that a morality is accepted by a society does not guarantee that it has normative authority in that society. For example, given our biological and psychological make-up, not just anything could count as a good way of life. Again, given that most persons are somewhat self-interested and that society requires some measure of cooperation, any plausible morality will include a value of reciprocity (good in return for good on some proportional basis). Given all the statistics we have on the negative impacts obese persons have, both long term and short term, on almost every type of resources and community infrastructure that we have, I feel that it can be objectively said that proponents of the HAES movement are immoral due to a lack of communal reciprocity (among others, but that's what I'm thinking about today). To sum it up: Wong has developed this approach at length in more recent work (2006). His “pluralistic relativism” continues to emphasize that there are universal constraints on what could be a true morality. The constraints are based on a naturalistic understanding of human nature and the circumstances of human life. For Wong, given a variety of human needs and the depth of self-interest, morality's function is to promote both social co-operation and individual flourishing.  Wong, D.B., 1986, “On Moral Realism without Foundations,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 24 (Supplement): 95–113. Wong, D.B., 1996, “Pluralistic Relativism,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy: Moral Concepts, 20: 378–399 Wong, D.B., 2006, Natural Moralities: A Defense of Pluralistic Relativism, New York: Oxford University Press TL;DR: The HAES movement literally, relatively, and objectively doesn't have a proper leg to stand on in regard to morality and social acceptability.