|
What is
relativism?
Relativism
is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally
valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. This means
that all moral positions, all religious systems, all art forms, all
political movements, etc., are truths that are relative to the
individual. Under the umbrella of relativism whole groups of
perspectives are categorized. In obvious terms, some are:
(truth) - Cognitive relativism affirms that all truth is
relative. This would mean that no system of truth is more valid
than another one and that there is no objective standard of
truth. It would, naturally, deny that there is a God of absolute
truth.
moral/ethical
relativism
- all morals are relative to the social group within which they
are constructed.
situational
relativism
- that ethics (right and wrong) are dependent upon the
situation.
Unfortunately, the philosophy of relativism is pervasive in our
culture today. With the rejection of God, and Christianity in
particular, absolute truth is being abandoned. Our pluralistic
society wants to avoid the idea that there really is a right and
wrong. This is evidenced in our deteriorating judicial system that
has more and more trouble punishing criminals, in our entertainment
media which continues to push the envelope of morality and decency,
in our schools which teach evolution and "social tolerance", etc.
In addition, the plague of moral relativism is encouraging everyone
to accept homosexuality, pornography on TV, fornication, and a host
of other "sins" that were once considered wrong, but are now being
accepted and even promoted in society. It is becoming so pervasive
that if you speak out against moral relativism and its "anything
goes" philosophy, you're labeled as an intolerant bigot. Of course,
this is incredibly hypocritical of those who profess that all points
of view are true, yet reject those who profess absolutes in
morality. It seems that what is really meant by the moral
relativists is that all points of view are true except for the views
that teach moral absolutes, or an absolute God, or absolute right
and wrong.
Some typical expressions that reveal an underlying
presupposition of relativism are comments such as "That is your
truth, not mine," "It is true for you, but not for me," and "There
are no absolute truths." Of course, these statements are illogical,
which I demonstrate in the paper "Refuting
relativism." Relativism is
invading our society, our economy, our schools, and our homes.
Society cannot flourish nor survive in an environment where everyone
does what is right in his own eyes, where the situation determines
actions and if the situation changes, lying or cheating is
acceptable -- as long as you're not caught. Without a common
foundation of truth and absolutes, our culture will become weak and
fragmented.
I must admit, however, that there is validity to some aspects
of relativism. For example, what one society considers right
(driving on the left side of the road) another considers wrong.
These are customs to which a "right and wrong" are attached, but
they are purely relativistic and not universal because they are
culturally based. Child rearing principles vary in different
societies as do burial practices and wedding ceremonies. These
"right and wrong ways" are not cosmically set in stone nor are they
derived from some absolute rule of conduct by some unknown god.
They are relative and rightly so. But, their relativism is properly
asserted as such. It doesn't matter what side of the road we drive
in as long as we all do it the same way.
Likewise, there are experiences that are valid only for
individuals. I might be irritated by a certain sound, where another
person will not. In this sense, what is true for me is not
necessarily true for someone else. It is not an absolute truth that
the identical sound causes irritation to all people. This is one
way of showing that certain aspects of relativism are true. But, is
it valid to say that because there is a type of personal relativism
that we can then apply that principle to all areas of experience and
knowledge and say that they too are also relative? No, it is not a
valid assumption. First of all, to do so would be an absolute
assessment which contradicts relativism.
Furthermore, if all the things are relative, then there cannot
be anything that is absolutely true between individuals. In other
words, if all people deny absolute truth and establish relative
truth only from their experiences, then everything is relative to
the individual. How then can there be a common ground from which to
judge right and wrong or truth? It would seem that there cannot be.
Of course, the issue that is important here is whether or not
there are absolute truths. Also, can there be different kinds of
absolute truths if indeed there are absolute truths? We might ask
if it is always wrong to lie? Or, does 1 + 1 always equal 2? Is it
always true that something cannot be both in existence and not in
existence at the same time? Is it always true that something cannot
bring itself into existence if it first does not exist? If any of
these questions can be answered in the affirmative then relativism
is refuted -- at least to some degree.
More questions arise. If all moral views are equally valid,
then do we have the right to punish anyone? Can we ever say that
something is wrong? In order to say that something is wrong we must
first have a standard by which we weigh right and wrong in order to
make a judgment. If that standard of right and wrong is based on
relativism, then it is not a standard at all. In relativism,
standards of right and wrong are derived from social norms. Since
society changes, the norms would change and so would right and
wrong. If right and wrong change, then how can anyone be rightly
judged for something he did wrong if that wrong might become right
in the future?
Finally, is it fair to apply logical analysis to relativistic
principles? Many relativists say no. But, I do not see why not. If
a relativist were to convince me that logic isn’t necessary in
examining relativism, he’d have to convince me using logic, which
would be self defeating. If a relativist uses relativism -- the
subjective view of his own opinions -- to validate his position, he
is using circular reasoning; namely, he is using relativism to
establish relativism. So, either way, he has lost the argument.
To conclude, if relativism is true and all points of view are
true, then is my view that relativism is false, true?
Does truth contradict itself? No it doesn't.
Print this page | Back
to Top
|
