Relativism

A fantastic essay by Syeva Breus =D

   Relativism has gained major acceptance in our culture. It has become a common part of our current society’s worldview. Many individuals today don’t even stop to consider th eimplications of holding such a position on ethics, morality, and life ingeneral; they adopt it due to its popularity and prevalence. However, when comparing the traditional belief of ethical absolutism with ethical relativism,the immediate philosophical position and consequential logical conclusions of ethical relativism present serious problems. In fact, because of the problems inherent in the nature of relativism, many relativists hold to principles of ethical absolutism without acknowledging it or even realizing it. This paper will show that though one may declare himself a relativist, this is an impossibility due to the principles found in absolutism.
         
  First, it would be beneficial to understand what is meant by the terms relativism and absolutism. Relativism can have many variations and theses associated with it. In this case, relativism refers to ethical relativism as the opposing view of ethical absolutism. When one refers to himself as a ethical relativist, he/she is claiming to adhere to one of four basic theses associated with ethical relativism. Ethical absolutism holds the position that morality exists apart from the opinions of cultures, is knowable by human beings, and prescribes humans to act upon these moral principles and laws. The remainder of this paper describes each of the four basic theses associated with ethical relativism and contrasts each with ethical absolutism.
           
The first thesis of relativism is cultural or descriptive relativism. As a factual, descriptive thesis, this position asserts that cultures have different views ofmorality in general. This thesis holds that there is a basic ethical disagreement between cultures: a disagreement about moral and ethical values. However, this position does not provide a coherent, irrefutable view of morality and ethics. Neither does it disprove the absolutist position thatwhile culture A could have objective right moral values, culture B could have objectivewrong moral values. In other words, if there is a disagreement about whether somethingis right or not, it does not follow that the thing in question cannot be right. Furthermore, cultural or descriptive relativism denies the existence of natural moral law: “the notion that there are true, universally binding moralprinciples knowable by all people and rooted in creation…” History shows thatthe majority of cultures have similar values: do not steal, do not murder, respect your neighbor, and so forth. Thus, it is impossible to hold the cultural relativist position due to the absolutist principle of natural moral law.
           
The second thesis of ethical relativism is normative or ethical relativism. In contrast with the previous thesis, normative relativism is an evaluative, prescriptive thesis that asserts that an individual must act in accordance with his/her society’s code. When one believes in normative relativism, he believes that the truth of moral propositions is relative. What is true to one individual or one culture is not necessarily true to another individual or culture. Normative relativism has two forms: subjectivism (moral values are relative to an individual) and conventionalism (moral values are relative to an entire culture or group of people). As with all forms of ethical relativism, normative relativism has many problems and objections raised against it,especially in light of absolutist principles. Normative relativism doesn’t specify what a “relevant society” is, nor does it offer an explanation of what one must do if he is part of several “societies” that disagree over moral principles,such as family, friends, co-workers, etc. In response to normative relativism,ethical absolutism offers natural moral law and the principle that there areabsolute moral values. Furthermore, normative relativism allows no room for social reform; there is no distinction between virtue and vice. This is clearly not the case in the real world, since there have been many reformers who brought reformations and revivals in history. Thus, this clearly points to the existence of an objective morality, advocated by ethical absolutism. Finally, normative relativism rejects the universal principle that “some acts are wrong regardless of social convention” and that any given society can “morally blame”another society. Under normative relativism, it would be wrong for the world to blame Hitler for the Holocaust. Clearly, it is impossible to be a normative relativist because of the existence of objective truth and morality.
          
 The third thesis is metaethical relativism, also known as conceptual relativism. This thesis is very similar to normative relativism. According to metaethical relativism, the very meanings of moral terms are themselves relative to individuals or societies. In other words, what is considered stealing to society A is wrong to society A, while what is considered stealing to society Bis wrong to society B. The problems encountered with metaethical relativism arethe same as those encountered with normative relativism: “problems of defininga society and determining the relevant society…, the reformer’s dilemma, andthe fact that some acts are intuitively wrong regardless of what societies meanby right and wrong.” However metaethical relativism raises another problem, namely that according to metaethical relativism it is “impossible for two societies to even have a moral difference.” In contrast with normative relativism which saysthat it would be wrong for the world to blame Hitler for the Holocaust, metaethical relativism asserts that there wasn’t even a moral difference. Again, this is clearly a misconception of reality. Ethical absolutism absolutely crushes metaethical relativism with the principles of natural moral law and the existence of objective moral laws that are not defined by societies or individuals. Epistemologically, while metaethical relativism denies the existence “the properties of goodness or righteousness”, ethical absolutism asserts that such properties exist and can be known by humans in the universe.
           
The fourth thesis is ethical skepticism. This thesis has two versions: epistemological skepticism and ontological skepticism. Epistemological skepticism asserts thatthough moral values can exist they cannot be known. Ontological skepticism altogether denies the existence of such moral values. Like the previous theses of ethical relativism, ethical skepticism has many problems with its coherence.As a skeptic, one cannot know anything, due to the empirical nature of knowing if a moral statement can be known or not. Thus, in the very least, ethical skepticism is self-refuting. However, ethical skepticism “cannot recommend any moral behavior whatever, including toleration of different moral opinions.” Clearly,people do not hold this view on morality. Ethical absolutism shows that ethical skepticism is incoherent and has no bearing in reality. Thus, due to the principles of ethical absolutism, it is impossible for one to hold to ethical skepticism and maintain a coherent worldview based on reality.
            These are the main theses associated with ethical relativism. There are several others that possibly fall into the category of relativism but due to their resemblance to and agreement with ethical relativism; they are debatable and difficult to disprove. This category includes views such as combinatorial relativism and the principle of tolerance.
          
 In conclusion, the principles of ethical absolutism “refute” the possibility for someone to hold to ethical relativism. This is mainly due to the fact that individuals who claim to adhere to the principles of ethical relativism live under the principles that are laid out in ethical absolutism. Ethical relativism is really appealing because it makes man lord over his choices and views on morality or the absence thereof. However, there are objectively moral values that apply to every individual. These moral values are prescribed byAlmighty God and are knowable by all.