A relativist is not really more understanding than and objectivist. This really is an implied belief. Extracted from page 22 of our book, " A problem for the two types of relativists is based on the INTENDED belief that relativitism is a more tolerant position than objectivism" So , according to our book and objectivist is not a less tolerant that a relativist. What dictates tolerance may be the society by which either person lives. Some societies possess tolerance as a dominant value in which case that person, whether relativist or objectivist, is more understanding than there counter-part, which usually, for the sake of argument, lives in a society which usually doesn't keep tolerance while dominant worth. As stated simply by our publication, " He / she cannot carry that all persons should be understanding, because threshold cannot be an objective or transcultural value, relating to relativism" This means that only some societies watch tolerance in the same lumination, because every single society has a different set of morals philosophy. An objectivist, unlike a relativist/subjectivist, is convinced that there is an excellent right and wrong, moral and wrong. Because of this, there exists a stout difference between the two camps. Naturally the relativist believes the exact opposite by which there is no define right and wrong, that it can be instead based on cultural principles and personal views of the world. The relativist believes that a person dictates their morals for the way they were brought up and the environment in which that they grew up. The objectivist is convinced that a person is placed by a joining set of probe that is also applied to everybody globally.