More handpicked essays just for you.
Relevance of philosophy to daily life
Importance of philosophy in every day life
Importance of philosophy in every day life
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
Philosophers’ Arguments
According to Protagoras, a Greek philosopher, man is the measure of everything that exists and that which does not exist. Truth, to him is what man perceives, and there is nothing of higher value of truth as compares to the other. Truth can only be better. The strength of his argument is the much self-esteem it can raise on an individual. In addition, it encourages peo...
Finally, in Beckwith’s fourth point, he evaluates the absurd consequences that follow moral relativist’s arguments. In his final critique, Beckwith uses typical philosophical examples that Mother Teresa was morally better than Adolf Hitler, rape is always wrong, and it is wrong to torture babies. Beckwith argues that for anyone to deny these universal claims is seen as absurd, yet it concludes with moral objectivism that there are in fact universally valid moral positions no matter the culture from which those individuals
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
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.
(2) Williams, Bernard. "The Truth in Relativism." Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 75 (1975): 215-28. Web.
"Who's to judge who's right or wrong?" In the case against moral relativism Pojman provides an analysis of Relativism. His analysis includes an interpretation of Relativism that states the following ideas: Actions vary from society to society, individuals behavior depends on the society they belong to, and there are no standards of living that apply to all human kind. An example that demonstrates these ideas is people around the world eat beef (cows) and in India, cows are not to be eaten. From Pojman second analysis an example can be how the Japanese take of their shoes all the time before entering the house. In Mexico it is rare that people take off their shoes. They might find it wired or not normal. In his third analysis he gives that sense moral relativism and cultural relativism are tied together, that their can be no
For many years humans have pursued the meaning of truth, knowledge and understanding. For many this pursuit of understanding the meaning of truth doesn’t end until one finds a “truth” that is nourishing to them. Even if this is the case one may choose to look for an alternate truth that may be more satisfactory to them. This pursuit of truth does not always have to follow the same path as there may be different ideas for everyone on how truth is actually obtained and which is a better way to obtain the truth is. Two philosophers of their time, Plato and Charles Peirce had their own methodologies and ideas on how truth and knowledge could be obtained.
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.
At first glance the words “Tradition” and “tradition” may appear to be identical concepts. Upon further study, examination, and contemplation, however, these two words differ in their precise definitions. “Tradition” carries more weight and meaning than the word “tradition.” Similarly, “Truth” and “truth” do not denote the exact same principle. In fact, philosophers and religious scholars have been debating the origins of the latter two doctrines since the Middle Ages. The major dispute associated with “Truth” with a capital T and “truth” with a lower-case “t” focuses around the field of study in which each is used. According to two prominent thinkers of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Truth is revealed through religion while truth can be reasoned with philosophy. Al-Ghazali and Thomas Aquinas both hold similar, basic views on the subjects of reason and faith that uncover absolute Truth. By way of relating to the practical and functional appeal of the common public, however, Aquinas provides the stronger position of thinking when compared to that of Al-Ghazali.
Since Protagoras claimed that man is the measure of all things it is true or reflective of reality, then nobody is ever wrong about anything. This means that nobody deserves criticism, judgment, or correction for anything that they say, their beliefs, or their actions. Protagoras’ claim empowers us; it implies that each of us, as individuals having individual beliefs, are the creators of his or her own truth. Our truth is based on the social traditions in which we are accustomed to. Our truth is determined by our culture and our habituation. It is shaped by the experiences that we have had, those that are yet to come, and our precise biopsychology. There is no way a person can form a culture-free or perspective free belief. Truth is the relativeness of one’s inner most innate tug with morality.
Cultural relativism is perfect in its barest form. Even though many peoples have many different beliefs and many of these people believe that their own moral code is the only true one, who can say which is better than another? This is the struggle that cultural relativism sets out to permanently resolve. It seems as if cultural relativism could bring about natural equality among groups of differing beliefs. After all, no one belief can be qualified (attributed) as being superior or better than any other belief. ...
Moral relativism is the concept that people’s moral judgement can only goes as far a one person’s standpoint in a matter. Also, one person’s view on a particular subject carries no extra weight than another person. What I hope to prove in my thesis statement are inner judgements, moral disagreements, and science are what defend and define moral relativism.
Gilbert Harman lays out his moral relativism theory with “inner judgments”, the statements concerned with “ought”, in Moral Relativism Defended. However, he assumes an important premise of his theory to be true, which is the reason that I will prove the missing premise – that moral relativism is true – in this paper. Moreover, his form of moral relativism with his “four-place predicate ‘Ought(A,D,C,M),’ which relates an agent A, a type of action D, considerations C, and motivating attitudes M,” has brought about both meta-ethical and practical concerns. He argues that these inner judgments are only possible if agent A acknowledges considerations of the circumstance C, invokes motivating attitudes M, and supports the action D with C and M. In
Moral relativism, as Harman describes, denies “that there are universal basic moral demands, and says different people are subject to different basic moral demands depending on the social customs, practices, conventions, and principles that they accept” (Harman, p. 85). Many suppose that moral feelings derive from sympathy and concern for others, but Harman rather believes that morality derives from agreement among people of varying powers and resources provides a more plausible explanation (Harman, p. 12).The survival of these values and morals is based on Darwin’s natural selection survival of the fittest theory. Many philosophers have argued for and against what moral relativism would do for the world. In this essay, we will discuss exactly what moral relativism entails, the consequences of taking it seriously, and finally the benefits if the theory were implemented.
In a world that gradually wants impartial evidence for all statements that are made, be they methodical or spiritual, it would appear that as civilization advances, we are not really in hunting for absolute certainty. We are eager to give and take, oversee and in some cases disregard the obvious fact. In a multicultural society, it is essential to debate absolutism and relativism, irrespective of the effects of spiritual arguments have supported with them to the present day. Absolutism and relativism can eventually be the directing factor as to how individuals, groups and countries act and reply to incentives. It is the variance in the midst of achievement and expiration. The Christian views will certainly strength some to be opposed ethical totalitarianism, but the fact residues that only one single fact can be true. The philosophy of non-contradiction cannot agree for several facts or truths, so only one can rule as undeniably true.
What exactly is truth? What is true? These questions are two completely different questions. In order to answer what is true, you must first determine what truth actually is. If we look in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, we see the definition that says “The things that are true”. This is not what we are looking for in a definition of this word, but really there is no defining line between what is true, and what is not.