Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Stryc-9
New member
This thread is in response to a claim I read somewhere that "morality is relative". I find moral relativism to be an extremely dangerous and misunderstood position - so please excuse the following tirade....
Here are my reasons for rejecting moral relativism:
Problem 1. Relativism is self-referentially incoherent:
The relativist believes, inconsistently, that there is no objective standard concerning "truth", yet he wants relativism itself to be considered objectively true. How can relativism, as a philosophical position, be true, when relativism maintains that there is no such thing as objective truth?
Problem 2. Relativism blurs the distinction between "TRUTH" and "BELIEF":
If truth is relative, there can be no clear distinction between "truth" and mere "belief". If this is the case, there can be no such thing as false beliefs!!! Imagine the consequences of this!! Under relativism, the pedophile's belief that raping small children must be respected as TRUE! Also, at one point in our recent history, people believed that the earth was flat. Does this mean that because they believed it, it was true? What is the point in saying, "Well, it was true FOR THEM." Obviously it was never TRUE that the earth was flat.
Problem 3. Relativism is an Intellectual Defense Mechanism:
The reasoning behind holding a relativist position is generally something of this sort: "I can't explain WHY I'm right - therefore, there is no explanation and everything is relative!" Under relativism there is no point to debate or argument! Relativism isolates people ---> "I can't understand your position (because everything is relative) therefore, why bother trying to understand any position but my own?
Problem 4. Relativism doesn't fit all examples:
People generally invoke relativism when talking about issues that are not problematic. e.g., "I prefer strawberries and you prefer blueberries." or "I think the room is cold and you think the room is hot." But again, consider the case of the pedophile. e.g., "I think molesting children is disgusting but you think molesting children is wonderful." Do we really want to shrug our shoulders and appeal to relativism when the pedophile makes the claim that he ought to be able to rape children? (because, hey, morality is relative!).
I think people confuse SKEPTICISM with RELATIVISM - and unknowingly call themselves relativists, when in fact, they don't really understand what relativism entails.
Skepticism ----> there are some objective truths - but we don't know what they are.
Relativism -----> there are no objective truths. period.
People generally support relativism because they believe in TOLERANCE. Relativists are really trying to say: "We have no right to judge other people/cultures - we ought to be tolerant of others." Yet this itself is a moral maxim!! Again, relativists propose this as an objective principle that we ought to follow (the principle of tolerance) - yet their position denies that there can ever be objective principles!!
That is all.
Here are my reasons for rejecting moral relativism:
Problem 1. Relativism is self-referentially incoherent:
The relativist believes, inconsistently, that there is no objective standard concerning "truth", yet he wants relativism itself to be considered objectively true. How can relativism, as a philosophical position, be true, when relativism maintains that there is no such thing as objective truth?
Problem 2. Relativism blurs the distinction between "TRUTH" and "BELIEF":
If truth is relative, there can be no clear distinction between "truth" and mere "belief". If this is the case, there can be no such thing as false beliefs!!! Imagine the consequences of this!! Under relativism, the pedophile's belief that raping small children must be respected as TRUE! Also, at one point in our recent history, people believed that the earth was flat. Does this mean that because they believed it, it was true? What is the point in saying, "Well, it was true FOR THEM." Obviously it was never TRUE that the earth was flat.
Problem 3. Relativism is an Intellectual Defense Mechanism:
The reasoning behind holding a relativist position is generally something of this sort: "I can't explain WHY I'm right - therefore, there is no explanation and everything is relative!" Under relativism there is no point to debate or argument! Relativism isolates people ---> "I can't understand your position (because everything is relative) therefore, why bother trying to understand any position but my own?
Problem 4. Relativism doesn't fit all examples:
People generally invoke relativism when talking about issues that are not problematic. e.g., "I prefer strawberries and you prefer blueberries." or "I think the room is cold and you think the room is hot." But again, consider the case of the pedophile. e.g., "I think molesting children is disgusting but you think molesting children is wonderful." Do we really want to shrug our shoulders and appeal to relativism when the pedophile makes the claim that he ought to be able to rape children? (because, hey, morality is relative!).
I think people confuse SKEPTICISM with RELATIVISM - and unknowingly call themselves relativists, when in fact, they don't really understand what relativism entails.
Skepticism ----> there are some objective truths - but we don't know what they are.
Relativism -----> there are no objective truths. period.
People generally support relativism because they believe in TOLERANCE. Relativists are really trying to say: "We have no right to judge other people/cultures - we ought to be tolerant of others." Yet this itself is a moral maxim!! Again, relativists propose this as an objective principle that we ought to follow (the principle of tolerance) - yet their position denies that there can ever be objective principles!!
That is all.
Last edited:
