Zhuangzi’s radical shrug at fixed distinctions—between right and wrong, life and death—has drawn its fair share of critics over the centuries. Traditional Confucian thinkers grumbled that dissolving moral categories risks sliding down a slippery slope into ethical chaos. Without firm standards to guide behavior, social harmony could fray, they warned, echoing concerns still heard in today’s debates over “cancel culture” and shifting social norms.

Some modern philosophers charge that Zhuangzi’s relativism amounts to a philosophical dead end. If every perspective is equally valid, how can anyone argue for justice or human rights? Critics argue this kind of “anything goes” stance inadvertently hands ammunition to cynics who challenge scientific consensus, from climate change skeptics to conspiracists using deepfake technology. In a post-truth era, abandoning claims to objective reality can feel like opening a can of worms.

A second stream of criticism highlights internal tension. Zhuangzi’s parables celebrate boundless freedom, yet they hinge on the storyteller’s own artful constructions. Pointing out this paradox, some scholars suggest he’s undermining his own message—using fixed narratives to denounce all narratives. That irony hasn’t escaped contemporary literary theorists, who note that deconstructing meaning through storytelling can sometimes reinforce, rather than eradicate, the very boundaries it seeks to dissolve.

Political philosophers have likewise weighed in. In 2024’s global elections, reflexive appeals to cultural relativism were blamed for paralysis on urgent issues: migration, climate policy, social justice. Critics argue that if every community claims its own “Way,” collective action stalls, and shared problems remain unaddressed.

Still, this spirited debate shows Zhuangzi’s ideas are far from gathering dust. Pushed to its edges, his relativism forces a reckoning: is freedom worth risking coherence? Even amid today’s polarized landscape, that question refuses to fade into the background.