'Pretended Neutrality' in Moral Relativism

Does moral relativism support the view that we should be tolerant of other cultures?

(1) The claim that 'we should be tolerant' is itself a moral claim. It does not operate over above the field of moral discourse in a neutral and 'objective' sphere of inquiry

(2) Both tolerance and intolerance must be tolerated by the truly tolerant. If the tolerant fails to tolerate the intolerant he/she becomes the intolerant

(3) 'Tolerance' is a by-product of a particular moral locus- of Western liberal democracies! Western multiculturalism is not truly neutral. It privileges certain values. Tolerance and openness are rooted in Western modernity.

The Individual and the Herd

'The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is, and everything happens as it does happen: in it no value exists—and if it did exist, it would have no value. If there is any value that does have value, it must lie outside the whole sphere of what happens and is the case.' (20th century German philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein)

Oh moralists! Do not concern yourself with petty abstraction and theory! The object of morality is its practise not its preaching! Of what value is that which exists outside the whole? If there is any value which does have value it cannot have any value for us!

You have often heard a great deal on the unity of the moralists- 'Harm no one, rather help everyone as much as you can- this is the claim all moralists are attempting to ground.' But I say unto you, this and this alone is the foundation upon which all moralists are agreeed: renounce the self and find shared victory in the herd. On revenge: Seek not to satisfy your thirst for blood but rather maximise the herd's rest in self-preservation. On stealing: Seek not your own material satisfaction but rather affirm the herd's rest in possession.

Is morality but earthly compromise?