The consequence of his philosophy rings true for me. There are no absolute values, only perspectives, points of view, which are potentially in conflict. The ones which win out do so only because they are stronger than the others, not truer, or necessarily more moral.

This applies whether it be physical force that is at issue or rational argument. Rational argument by this account might have no moral superiority over violence, it is merely preferable for most people. There is no external authority (such as God) whereby the “right” or the “true” arguments can be validated.

An argument is won by whoever dominates the rhetoric and convinces the majority most of whom are too hapless to know any better. Maybe that’s not what the man was saying exactly but it about summarises my own view on the matter.