Relativism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first clear statement of relativism comes with the Sophist Protagoras, as quoted by Plato, "The way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me; and the way things appears to you, in that way they exist for you" (Theaetetus 152a). Thus, however I see things, that is actually true -- for me. If you see things differently, then that is true -- for you. There is no separate or objective truth apart from how each individual happens to see things. Consequently, Protagoras says that there is no such thing as falsehood. Unfortunately, this would make Protagoras's own profession meaningless, since his business is to teach people how to persuade others of their own beliefs. It would be strange to tell others that what they believe is true but that they should accept what you say nevertheless. So Protagoras qualified his doctrine: while whatever anyone believes is true, things that some people believe may be better than what others believe.
Plato thought that such a qualification reveals the inconsistency of the whole doctrine. His basic argument against relativism is called the "Turning the Tables" (Peritropé, "turning around") argument, and it goes something like this: "If the way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me, and the way things appears to you, in that way they exist for you, then it appears to me that your whole doctrine is false." Since anything that appears to me is true, then it must be true that Protagoras is wrong [1]. Relativism thus has the strange logical property of not being able to deny the truth of its own contradiction. Indeed, if Protagoras says that there is no falsehood, then he cannot say that the opposite, the contradiction, of his own doctrine is false. Protagoras wants to have it both ways -- that there is no falsehood but that the denial of what he says is false -- and that is typical of relativism. And if we say that relativism simply means that whatever I believe is nobody else's business, then there is no reason why I should tell anybody else what I believe, since it is then none of my business to influence their beliefs.
So then, why bother even stating relativism if it cannot be used to deny opposing views? Protagoras's own way out that his view must be "better"...
... middle of paper ...
...th recognizing the self-contradictory and self-defeating character of relativism is that it does remove the easy out. We may know thereby that there are absolute and objective truths and values, but this doesn't tell us what they are, how they exist, or how we can know them. In our day, it often seems that we are still not one iota closer to having the answers to those questions. Thus, the burden of proof in the history of philosophy is to provide those answers for any claims that might be made in matters of fact or value. Socrates and Plato got off too a good start, but the defects in Plato's theory, misunderstood by his student Aristotle, immediately tangled up the issues in a way that still has never been properly untangled. Most philosophers would probably say today that there has been progress in understanding all these issues, but then the embarrassment is that they mostly would not agree about just in what the progress consists. The relativists still think that progress is to return to what Protagoras thought in the first place. What they really want is that easy out, so as not to need to face the awesome task of justifying or discovering the true nature of being and value.
In its entirety, moral relativism is comprised of the belief that, as members of various and countless cultures, we cannot judge each other’s morality. If this theory stands true, then “we have no basis for judging other cultures or values,” according to Professor McCombs’ Ethics 2. Our moral theories cannot extend throughout cultures, as we do not all share similar values. For instance, the Catholic tradition believes in the sacrament of Reconciliation. This sacrament holds that confessing one’s sins to a priest and
In the introduction, Blackburn constructs a clear antithesis between absolutism and relativism, and illustrates their focuses with colloquial words like “bullshitting” and “fetish”. Although this way of expressing ideas is kind of rude, it makes audiences easily understand the ongoing conflict between these two ideas and intrigue them to read more. The rest of the article continues such fun style of writing until the part where the author begins to point out the problems within the prevalent idea, relativism. The author’s reasoning against relativism starts with an imaginary debate where pros and cons are discussing the validity of banning fox hunting. Then the author introduces a relativist, Rosie, who tells the pros and cons that “The truth you are holding is relative; what you believe is true may not be true for the other.” Since this point, the author’s reasoning begins to become intense. First, he argues that what Rosie suggests doesn’t contribute to the debate because with or without her intervention, the debate will remain controversial. Then he digs deeper by suggesting that Rosie may want to emphasize toleration is essential yet such claim is actually absolute, which contradicts the relativist value that Rosie believes. Finally, Blackburn states that in order to avoid such paradox, Rosie may assert that “You have your truth; I have mine”, yet it still doesn’t contribute anything to the
In Schafer’s paper Assessor Relativism and the Problem of Moral Disagreement, assessor relativism gives two options to someone participating in a disagreement. They can either “converge” with their opponent (agree) upon one belief, or refuse to converse with their opponent. Williams’ paper The Truth in Relativism argues for the idea of notional versus real confrontations. Williams’ idea of notional and real confrontation says someone participating in a disagreement can only convert to their opponent’s belief if and only if they are able to recognize this conversion as a real option. If there is no real option, then there is no real disagreement.
Many seem to have falling prey to the seduction of ethical relativism, because it plays in to their ethnocentric egoistic moral belief. Individuals such as Pojman are able to critically evaluate this moral principle and not fall victim like his or hers lay counter parts. We will attempt to analyze the theory of ethical relativism, by check the validity of this ethical theory, and evaluate its ethical concepts. With these procedures we will find if it is competent as an ethical principle to adhere by. Then evaluate Louis Pojman critique on ethical relativism and analyze does he successfully refute relativism position. We will also analyze objectivism; the ethical theory which Pojman erects in the place of ethical relativism.
(1) Schafer, Karl. "Assessor Relativism and the Problem of Moral Disagreement." The Southern Journal of Philosophy 50.4 (2012): 602-20. Web.
RORTY, R. Relativismo: encontrar e fabricar. Tradução de Eliana Sabino. In: CÍCERO, A. & WALY, S. (Org.). O Relativismo enquanto visão de mundo. Rio de Janeiro: Francisco Alves, 1994.
Irvine, William B. “Confronting Relativism” Academic Questions. 14.1 (2000) 42. Academic Search Complete. EBSCOhost. Stratton Taylor Coll. Lib., OK. 23 Oct. 2013.
In the book Who’s To Say? by Norman Melchert, a group of friends discuss relativism. Throughout the text, Melchert conveys that language can divide humanity and that this restrains people from getting a neutral observation. Through Peter, Melchert affirms that the way in which an event is observed is affected by how it is experienced, as well as the differences in observations amongst humankind. He concludes that our perspectives and testimonies are adulterated by our experiences.
Many researchers have brainstormed into the idea of relativism of truth. They have come up with very many views about what is meant by the term truth and if it varies from one person to another. Relativism is the doctrine in which truth; morality and knowledge get existence with relationship with the society, culture or history, and are not absolute. Is the truth a constant? The argument brings many questions that still remain unresolved or have answers that are not satisfactory. This paper evaluates some views of some philosophers and the strengths and weaknesses of their views. It also looks at the weaknesses and strengths of relativism, as put to scale with absolutism, which is its contrast.
Not anyone can just decide that they are doing the moral thing. The moral thing is what is good. This means that not everyone will agree on what is moral or good. This calls for a set of rules that we do not influence. Moral truths are necessary to establish a sense of what is good. In my opinion, there are numerous flaws that come about when ethical relativism is practiced. For example, as discussed before, killing for no apparent reason would be considered wrong by almost any person. However, using ethical relativism, we could conclude that killing an innocent person for no reason is actually moral. Subjectivism states that individuals determine for themselves what is right. And therefore, if in a person’s mind, they think it is moral to kill someone, subjectivism says that in this case, it is completely admissible. But, for another person in the exact same situation except if they thought killing was wrong, then killing this person is not moral. This is completely counterintuitive. The same exact situation is presented except how each person views killing, and we come to two opposite conclusions that are both moral. Another example is regarding slavery. The concept of slavery, to most people, is atrocious. However, 200 years ago, many people thought slavery was completely acceptable. In the eyes of relativist, it was completely moral in 1820 to enslave someone in Alabama but immoral in 2016 to do so. Again, the same
Gensler’s first opposition to cultural relativism is that “cultural relativism forces us to conform to society’s norms-or else we contradict ourselves” (Gensler, 1998). If good and any was socially accepted or was the same, then we would never contradict our society or question its worth. Inside cultural relativism, the minority view is automatically wrong, and good is determined by the majority viewpoint. Farther, if society says homicide is socially accepted, then that would mean homicide is good, since according to cultural relativism, what is socially accepted is good. For cultural relativism to be true, you must say and accept that crime is good, or simply reject cultural relativism. Gensler and so criticizes that cultural relativism is ignorant of the reality that everyone belongs to many overlapping subcultures, which frequently feature conflicting values and accepted norms. Cultural relativism fails to address these opposed norms between these societies and subcultures to which we lie in. If neither culture is fallacious, we cannot pick up from our mistakes and progress in order to “correct errors in our own norms” (Gensler, 1998). Gensler then claims that cultural relativism does not lay out with success against non-subjective truths for several
I believe that Philosophy is the study of different ways of thinking. In philosophy, you should question everything and never take anything for face value. There are always two sides to every coin as there are different ways of looking at things, is what philosophy teaches us. In philosophy, you must throw off all the limitations you have set on yourself when dealing with how you view things and how things seem to be.
...nt to those of the prevailing order. In a global world we should strive to develop greater social and ethical cohesion. Relativism is a hindrance to such an endeavour, a limiting theory that places great restraints and boundaries upon judgement, criticism, and interaction, which therefore limits the development of ethics.
Relativism follows along the same path as skepticism. It is defined as “The view that the truth about something depends on what persons or cultures believe.” (Vaughn 81) Plato also supports his stance on skepticism and views alike, by stating if those views were indeed accurate, philosophy would be widely open-ended and knowledge would be intolerable. In my opinion, there is no need to fear skepticism because if what skepticists believe to be true, then knowledge itself does not exist, and every concept imaginable is just based on one’s own beliefs. Plato responds to Sophists, skepticists, relativists, and those alike with an effective argument. His point centered on forming knowledge from beliefs, because in his eyes if a belief meets the criteria mentioned above, (as believable, truthful, and supported with good reasons) then it qualifies as knowledge. Under my perspective, it seems like no other measures would need to be required in order for that particular concept to be a knowledge-based
Conceptual relativism is concerned with truth and knowledge and belongs specifically with the ability of the human mind to construct different realities, people have different versions of realities but there is no one reality as is the same with truth there is no one absolute truth there are only truths. (Lazar 1998)Many authors have described the nature of this in their own languages and this has bought about many different views of conceptual relativism. It was Daniel Little’s belief that conceptual relativism was concerned with the fact that as the world is separated into so many different countries, cultures, religions and beliefs. It would not be possible to only have one theory on the structure of everything inside the world, for all individuals think differently, how can one theory be more plausible than another. (Lazar 1998) Peter Winch had a more radical view and argued that Science had absolutely nothing to do with explanations on what existed. He stated that human beings are more than just physical objects and that if human action was not being understood from the inside, how could the social sciences understand human action at all. He went on to say that the majority of sociology was not in fact a science it was a masked type of philosophy. Winch’s claims against the social sciences caused problems and some ethnomethodological sociologists changed the way they studied society and developed a non scientific route. (Lock 2010)However rationalists such as Popper reject the idea of relativism as he believed that unless all individuals shared the same framework of basic knowledge, there could never be agreements made. (Benton 2001)