What is Relativism History of Relativism - Essay Example

?Introduction Relativism, in its essence, deals with the concept of what is reality and whether it is absolute or not. It suggests that there is no absolute truth and that everything is relative in nature and this relativity is subjected to the perceptions and considerations. Relativism therefore essentially argues that different point of views which are argued against and in favor of are equally valid and the difference only arises due to different perceptions and considerations of individuals. Relativism however, comprises of a body of knowledge and different point of views with common theme that some central aspects of our existence are actually relative to some other things. Issues such as moral principles, justifications are considered as relative to other variables such as the language, culture as well as biological make-up. It also suggests that our own cognitive biases towards certain issues actually restrict our ability to view things objectively therefore this bias can be contained towards wherever we use our senses. As such, relativitism suggests that our existence is actually situated into our cultural and linguistic contexts therefore our perceptions about truth can be relative.( Wisman, 1990) Universalism, however, deals with one universal truth and has religious and theological foundations also. Different religions including Christianity and Islam endorse the concept of one universal truth and reality. Universalism therefore can be used to identify the particular doctrines concerning the formation of all people.( Anderson, 1990) This paper will focus upon describing and exploring relativitism in details while also arguing whether it is defensible and can be reconciled with universalism or not. History of Relativism It is suggested that there are no significant philosophers who ever can be considered as relativists. However, the history of relativism dates back to Greek era when Protagoras of Abdera believes to have put forward a simple version of relativism in his treatise Truth. Protagoras outlined that all human beings are measure of all things and to things they belong and to things they don’t belong they don’t. Apparently, Protagoras was of the view that human beings are creatures which can be associated with certain things and a person is a measure of how he associates with those things. Protagoras went on to say that to me a wind may seem cold or hot but to you it may be different.( Rorty,1991) It is critical to understand that Greek were aware of the cultural differences since 50 Century BCE and onwards. Herodotus even went on to discuss the cultural differences and biases people of India and Persia held and suggested that if you were to ask them what are the best laws, they would probably mention their own laws as the best. Similar, references are also made in other literature wherein it was critically outlined that no behavior can be shameful if it is not to the person who is practicing it. Further, arguments were also presented regarding different conceptions of God.( Lutz,1991) Protagoras was considered as the first official voice in relativism though very little is known about him. Most of his teachings are presented as reference in the works of Plato. Plato interpreted his most of the work wherein he argued that each thing appear to me so it as to me and each thing appear to you so it is to you. Protagoras also discussed about the truth and how it appears to others. It has been argued that during recent times, four important schools of thoughts emerged in relativism which have actually challenged the traditional view about It is suggested that relativistic motives appear almost everywhere in philosophy and that the relativists have been able to keep many thinkers captive of their ideas despite the fact that relativistic arguments often lead to implausible conclusions. Much of 20th century thought on the relativism has been focused upon presenting the issue more coherently rather than further refining its fundamental principles. The initial focus was on the diversity of the moral standards therefore early conclusions were drawn regarding the assumption that no one person should judge the actions of people from other cultures or times. There also have been efforts to outline the defensible level of tolerance in relativism as on its very fundamental level, relativism do advocates tolerance however, defining the defensible level of tolerance has remained one of the more elusive tasks for philosophers of 20th century.(Putnam,1981) What is relativism? Relativism in its basic form argues that some aspects of reality, experiences as well as our thoughts depend upon something else. As such reality and its associated concepts are relative in nature and cannot be considered as absolute in nature. To understand relativism in its comprehensive theme, it is important to actually evaluate three important themes. Relativism often starts with a plausible argument that we are culturally centered creatures and that our perceptions are driven by our cultural conditioning and how that culture or society actually views that reality. (Haack,1996) A relatively simple demonstration of what relativism actually suggests can be understood from a view in which world is based upon relativistic assumptions. In a world which is based upon relativitism would suggest that feelings each of us experience are private in nature and are limited to us only and that I cannot be pointed out that I can be wrong in that. This view further suggests that in such world people can only formulate their judgments for things to which they are familiar with therefore people cannot actually make erroneous judgments because their judgments will be firmly rooted into the culture and society in which they operate.( Bruner, 1992) The first view of relativism suggests that every belief is as good as that of others indicating the equality of beliefs and suggesting no discrimination in terms of deciding what is right and wrong. Second view is based upon the argument that “what is true” have different meanings and interpretations and that there can never be a single interpretation of this concept. Third view outlines that about the role of society and hot it can actually influence the way we perceive different experiences and realities. (Himma, 2008) One of the key assumptions of relativism is tolerance under which it is assumed that individuals will be tolerant of other point of views even if those points of views do not corroborate with the already established principles and frame of references of the individuals. This is because of the assumption that these assertions of the individuals are actually correct according to the prevailing culture of that time. Tolerance for ideas and their acceptability on equal footings therefore considered as necessary in order to ensure that bias is reduced whereas objective orientation can be achieved when discussing or arguing on certain points of differences.( McDonald, 2010) The concept of inner moral judgments is also associated with relativism as it outlines that agents have certain level of motivation associated with such moral judgments. These motivating reasons are however, derived from certain level of bargaining between the agents therefore inner moral judgments are relative to such agreements and hence the overall moral judgments made by individuals are relative in nature. Such bargaining agreements between different agents however, can be different in different societies and hence there can be disagreement regarding whether certain acts were moral in that culture and time or not. Descriptive and Normative Relativism Descriptive relativism assumes that different cultural groups have different standards and ways of thinking on certain things. An anthropologist therefore has to only interpret those cultural values and norms rather than evaluating them. Descriptive relativism therefore refers to the disagreements which different cultures and individuals have on the moral grounds with each other. It suggests that if two parties disagree on a certain issues does not mean that each party is actually wrong or mistaken in his arguments. Essentially, it suggests that each party can be right because each one has different perceptions about reality.( Dion,2010) Descriptive relativism is also considered as backed up by empirical claims and as such it can be verified through empirical insight that certain groups and cultures have different modes of thinking and perception. Descriptive relativism therefore deals with the pluralism as it attempts to accommodate different point of views and ideas which are considered as equally good and acceptable with respect to certain cultural associations. The plurality concept therefore can only provide certain frame of references and not the absolute or universal point of reference. Frame of references however, can change according to the overall perceptual differences and cultural uniqueness of the individuals. (Dempster, et.al, 2004) Normative relativism is considered as a Meta ethical theory which contends that if any moral judgment is made by a culture that moral judgment can be considered as true at that particular time. This is to say that we cannot actually declare moral practices of other cultures as wrong as the actions which can be declared as wrong has moral association with that culture. For example, if in one culture, one act is considered as immoral does not mean it is immoral or unethical in another culture because the moral system of that culture may allow these acts as moral. Absolute moral truth as well as morality is considered as associated with a particular culture and they are just expressions of any particular culture. For an individual, the overall moral truth is defined by the culture and culture is the only major source from where the moral truth is derived. (Bernstein,1986.) Normative relativism therefore don’t deny that people can actually act in a manner which can be wrong however, it suggests that it can be wrong if it is actually condemned by a particular culture. It is also critical to note that normative realism can also be described as an anti-realist moral theory because it outlines that truth or good and bad actually do not exist in themselves rather they are perceived under certain conditions which are appropriate to a particular culture and environment. It therefore suggests that things are not actually true in themselves but their meanings are driven by some other sources. Framework for Relativism One of the basic and relative schemas defined in relativism is to define the relationship of one variable with another. It is basic form, it suggests that Y is relative to X Wherein Y can be replaced with different variables such as thoughts, evaluations made by an individual, reality perceptions as well as experiences of individual whereas X is often replaced with something which can be influenced or changed with the change in Y. in this scheme of affairs, Y is considered as a dependent variable whereas X is considered as an independent variable. Dependent variable of Y means its value or its outcome will depend upon X whereas X as independent variable would outline that change in its outcome will change the value of Y.( Heit,2000) Dependent and Independent Variables It is critical to understand the relativism is based upon the concepts of independent and dependent variables and as such it is critical to explain or explore some of the dependent and independent variables which determine the outcome for our ethical and moral judgments. Central Beliefs A central belief is considered as a belief which cannot be abandoned without actually giving up on other different beliefs. As per descriptive relativism, certain groups do have central beliefs however, all beliefs may not be central to everyone. Normative relativism however, determines that there are no central beliefs and they are dependent upon a framework. It suggests that since we cannot escape our concepts and cultural beliefs therefore we are trapped in them and as such it may be difficult for us to get away from such beliefs and hence our conditioning will determine whether any moral issue is relative to us or not. Languages It has been argued that language is one of the fundamental independent variable which affects the outcome of different dependent variables. Language is considered as important because it attempt to influence the way we express our thoughts and feelings and therefore tend to have relatively greater impact on the way we relate things with each other. The hypothesis that the language of individuals actually affects the perceptions as well as thoughts of the individuals is called linguistic relativism and also comes under descriptive relativism regarding the actual influence of language on the perceptions held by the individuals. It is therefore critical to note that language has a causal influence over our perceptions and thoughts and through this causal relationships, language actually attaches our thoughts and perceptions with our culture. Culture and its association with relativism Most of the arguments in favor and against relativism actually surrounds around the idea of culture therefore it is one of the central themes in the series of arguments. Cultural relativism outlines that a person’s thoughts and perceptions are actually largely influenced by the culture in which he or she is raised. Cultural relativism therefore places our reaction to certain moral and ethical issues within the perspective of culture and how culture can actually influence it. It has been argued that culture is probably the only force with unlimited power to influence the human perceptions and thoughts. However, as the homogeneity of the culture has evolved and cultures started to merge with each other, the overall influence of a particular culture may have decreased.( Karlberg, 2004) It is critical to note that the extent to which culture can influence the actual perceptions and thoughts of the individuals may still be modest in nature. As such cultural relativism has found very little support on consistent basis over the period of time.( Benedict,1931) Religion Another important aspect which has relatively stronger and more lasting influence over the perceptions held by the individuals are affected by the religion. Religion is being considered as stronger influence in certain cultures to shape the overall moral and ethical beliefs held by the individuals in a given society or culture. Universalism and Relativism- Can they be reconciled? It is argued that both these concepts are actually considered as irrefutable and concepts which can hardly be reconciled with each other. The basic question that do moral questions such as good and bad has any meaning tend to create the differences in the way philosophers attempt to answer such questions. Universalism and relativism also tend to answer such questions however on relatively different scales. Universalism and absolutism started out of the need to have a universal body of knowledge and truth. Relativism on the other hand however points towards subtle differences in our opinions and perceptions about reality and truth. It is also however argued that cultures have never been so homogenous as they are now and this homogeneousness of the cultures have actually started to blur the actual differences between cultures. (Pinker, S, 2002) One of the potential conflicts between universalism and relativism is based upon the issue of human rights as it is argued that human rights are universal in nature. There are two important issues regarding this i.e. whether human rights are universal in nature and whether human rights should be universal? This debate on relatively important issue of human rights therefore outlines that the human rights can be challenged based upon cultural grounds. One of the critical debates therefore surrounds around whether human rights follow cultural imperialism or they actually universal in nature. It is argued that universalism and relativism may be reconciled under particular circumstances or when we actually divide culture into certain other sub-cultures. This could mean that if dividing culture into sub-cultures like political culture, it may be relatively possible to actually reconcile both the relativism as well as the universalism. Legitimacy of social and political relationships within agents which are duly supported by the political culture of the country can therefore lead to reconciliation between two ideas.( Appiah, 2006) It is also argued that the universal declaration on human rights and how they evolved over the period of time has certain cultural association also. Those who drafted the acceptable form of human rights belonged to different cultures and sub-cultures and their cultural association was reflected in the way human rights evolved over the period of time. This cultural association of human rights also questions the universal nature of human rights and whether they can be reconciled with the relativism or not.( Kidd, 2012) Is relativism Defensible? One of the key arguments against relativism is that it prevents individuals to pass any moral judgments hence restricts the ability of the individuals to pass moral judgments on issues which may be universally accepted as moral issues. Though it is argued that it advocates tolerance by suggesting that every moral argument or action is correct however, it is also stressed that sometimes all cultures have to make a unifying moral judgment and decide upon what is right and wrong. There needs to be a unifying consensus on certain issues which require the agreement of almost all the cultures. (Gairdner, 2008. ) For example, terrorism may be right to Muslim fundamentalists however, other cultures and societies have condemned it as an act of cruelty. There is a growing consensus which suggests that terrorism should be universally declared as an immoral and unethical activity. However, relativism’s position on this issue can be relatively different because in cultures like Afghanistan killing and display of arms is considered as moral and acceptable norm of the society. It is also argued that universal truth exists and is also immutable in nature therefore indicating that as a society how one can go to seek that truth? If relativism arguments are accepted, it can be easily concluded that no universal truth exists therefore society can be divided in seeking any truth which actually corresponds to what is actually true. This may create moral divisions within the society and as such the objective of tolerance may not be achieved. It is critical to note that on some occasions it is often relatively more plausible to defense relativism because there are no other options left. For example, etiquettes can be different in different countries and cultures and how people meet and greet each other can also be different. Calling people by their first names may be against the etiquettes in one culture but it may be perfectly alright in other cultures. As such it is relatively difficult to defend the universality of etiquettes as same greatly change across the cultures and sub-cultures and one has to accept them as normal way of dealing with life in that particular culture. The view that any outlook is just one of the outlooks and is not better than others specially the assertion that it is no better than others also seems to be one of the debatable issues. The assumption that accepting those who actually violates the very fundamentals of the society’s moral standards and values may be a relatively different task and individuals have to make a line where they accept certain moral tenets as the universal tents which need to be accepted across the whole society as well as culture. The moral requirements for tolerance under normative relativism therefore may be applicable for those who do not have sincere and moral convictions. Tolerating those who actually violate the very fundamental tenets of the society’s moral standing therefore may not be justifiable moral standing of any individual in a society. (Ball, and Gready, 2006 ) Relativism may also not be justifiable on the grounds of skepticism because relativism’s assertion that nothing can be final itself raises the skepticism. Skepticism really creates doubts regarding whether anything exists at all or not and whether relativism can justify something which might not exist at all. The question of what we ought to do is really what we ought to do therefore creates strong skepticism regarding our real intentions and their link with the existence of things as they are. The argument that there can be different beliefs and all are correct itself negates the proposition that what will actually address our moral problems. Though some argue that moral beliefs are absolute standards of conduct whereas some argue that they are not absolute standards but about prevailing standards. This difference in two opinion therefore highlights as to what should be considered as truth? (Bloor,. 1992) The concept of inner moral judgment also ought to justify things like slavery on the grounds of soberly logical thesis however; to justify something like slavery on such grounds may not be considered as entirely ethical and moral in any sense. Relativism may therefore not be fully defensible as it contains inherent contradictions which can expose its vulnerabilities. The inherent weaknesses of the arguments and the assertions that there cannot be certain universal truths can defy the acceptable norms of the society and society can actually go in stray if certain predefined moral grounds are not set to follow. In the absence of such moral grounds, it may be difficult for a society to follow what it considers as moral. (Haim 2009) Conclusion Relativism is considered as a body of knowledge which is based upon different point of views which evolved over the period of time. There is no fixed doctrine or ideology behind relativism as it is based upon a family of different point of views which have either evolved over the period of time or emerged in the due course. This philosophical position outlines that all points of views are equal and cannot be considered as wrong or immoral because they may be correct and moral in particular culture or time. It therefore suggests that all moralities are good and that all the moral systems and belief systems are equally good and there is no bias in them. Relativism therefore outlines that there must be tolerance for the opposing views because they cannot be dismissed as wrong or immoral in nature. Universalism, on the other hand, however, argues about the universality of truth and therefore suggests that there is one reality around which everything revolves. This therefore creates a point of divide between the two as relativism suggests that every moral issue and argument is actually relative to something else and to judge that, it is important to view such moral actions from a particular frame of reference. It is however, critical to note that both the ideas can be reconciled in certain matter and on certain issues there are clear and vivid distinctions between the two. This paper also discussed about whether relativism can be defensible and it was concluded that it may be possible to refute relativism in certain areas whereas in certain areas it may be relatively difficult to refute relativism. Specific example of etiquettes and how they relativism can be defended in this aspect has been critically discussed and explored in this paper. References 1. Anderson, John R. 1990 The Adaptive Character of Thought. London: Hove. 2. Appiah, K. W. 2006. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. 3. Ball, O. and Gready, P. 2006 The No-Nonsense Guide to Human Rights. New York: New Internationalist 4. Benedict, R 1931 Patterns of Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 5. Berger, P and Luckmann, 1966 The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. 6. Bernstein, R. 1986. Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press 7. Bloor, D. 1992 Knowledge and Social Imagery, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2nd/ed. 8. Bruner, J 1992 Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 9. Dempster, N et.al, 2004 Conflicts, confusions and contradictions in principals' ethical decision making, Journal of Educational Administration, 42(4), p.450 – 461 10. Dion, M 2010 Corruption and ethical relativism: what is at stake?, Journal of Financial Crime, 17(2), p.240 – 250 11. Gael McDonald, 2010 "Ethical relativism vs absolutism: research implications", European Business Review, 22(4), p.446 – 464 12. Gairdner, W. 2008. The book of absolutes: A critique of relativism and a defense of universals. Montreal: McGillQueen’s University Press. 13. Haack, S, 1996 Reflections on Relativism: From Momentous Tautology to Seductive Contradiction, Philosophical Perspectives, 10; 297-315. 14. Haim H, 2009 Essential others: anthropology and the return of the old savage, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 29(1/2), p.60 – 72 15. Heit, E 2000, Properties of Inductive Reasoning, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7; 569-592. 16. Himma, K 2008 The intercultural ethics agenda from the point of view of a moral objectivist, Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 6 (2), p.101 – 115 17. Karlberg, M. 2004. Beyond the culture of contest: From adversarialism to mutualism in an age of interdependence. Oxford: George Ronald. 18. Kidd, J 2012 Commentary on “Human rights training: impact on attitudes and knowledge", Tizard Learning Disability Review, 17 (2), p.88 – 91 19. Lutz, M 1991 ETHICAL RELATIVISM, SOCIO-ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS AND HUMAN DIGNITY, Humanomics, 7 (4), p.60 – 96 20. Pinker, S, 2002 The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Viking Press. 21. Putnam, H, 1981, Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 22. Rorty, R, 1991 Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers, 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 23. Wisman, J 1990 BEYOND FOUNDATIONALISM AND RELATIVISM: WHAT HOPE FOR SCIENCES OR SOCIETY?, Humanomics, 6(2), p.4 – 19 Read More