Relativism, broadly construed, is the view that truth, knowledge, or morality is relative to (or dependent on) the beliefs of an individual or a group. While philosophers have rightly rejected this view time and time again, it nonetheless persists in Western culture. Because of its persistence, and because it’s too often accepted uncritically, it’s worth examining. Here I want to discuss two of the most common forms of relativism and why we should reject them.
Truth Relativism and Moral Relativism
Two of the most common forms of relativism are truth relativism and moral relativism. Truth relativism is the view that all truth is relative to an individual. On this view, the truth of a proposition is dependent on what an individual believes, and the same proposition can be true for one person, but false for another. Truth relativism implies that there are no objective truths (i.e., truths independent of any individual’s beliefs). It’s captured by the saying, “that’s true for you, but not for me,” and is suggested by the phrase, “your truth,” as if there were a corresponding but possibly different “my truth.” You might, for example, believe that Justin Trudeau is the son of Pierre Trudeau and I might disagree, believing instead that he’s the son of Fidel Castro. That Justin is Pierre’s son is true for you, but that he’s Castro’s son is true for me.
Moral relativism is the view that moral truths about what is good and evil, right and wrong, is relative to a culture. In contrast to truth relativism, moral relativism is not concerned with truth in general, but only a subset of truths—viz., moral truths. Furthermore, in contrast to truth relativism, moral relativism makes moral truths dependent not on the individual, but on cultures. A moral relativist, then, can believe that science, for example, is a source of objective truth, but when it comes to morality, he believes that what is good or evil, right or wrong, is dependent on what a culture decides. Slavery, for instance, if moral relativism is true, is morally acceptable for some cultures (e.g., North Korea), but wrong for other cultures (e.g., North America).
Reasons for Relativism
Now, why would anyone believe in relativism? One reason is the fact that there is disagreement with respect to what is true. However, this reason holds no weight. Logically, if two people disagree about what’s true, it means that at least one of them is wrong (perhaps both are). It does not mean that both are somehow right. If you believe that Justin Trudeau is the son of Pierre Trudeau, and I believe that he’s the son of Castro, we can’t both be right—at least one of us has to be wrong (but I’ll let you figure this one out for yourself).
Another reason is the idea that it would be intolerant or hateful to believe or point out that someone else has a wrong belief. This, too, isn’t a good reason, and it stems from either oversensitivity or a misunderstanding of intolerance (or both). Just because I believe or claim that you’re wrong about something, it doesn’t mean that I’m thereby being intolerant or hateful. I’d be truly intolerant if I were to threaten, harm, or otherwise punish you because I thought you were wrong—but that’s not the same as simply believing or claiming that you’re wrong. In fact, it’s sometimes a good thing to believe and point out when someone is wrong. Say we’re going sky diving, and I believe that I’ve packed my parachute correctly. Say also that you saw me pack my parachute and you know for a fact that I actually didn’t pack it correctly. You would be doing a good thing by telling me (and hopefully convincing me) that I’m wrong and that I should repack my parachute.
Reasons to Reject Relativism
Besides having faulty motivations, there are further reasons to reject both truth relativism and moral relativism. The strongest and most prominent objection against truth relativism is that it’s self-refuting. Remember that truth relativism implies that there are no objective truths. The question, then, is whether truth relativism itself is objectively true. It doesn’t make sense to say that it’s only relatively true, that it’s true for some but not for others. If truth relativism is true at all, it must be objectively true. But if it’s objectively true, then it can’t be objectively true, because it implies that there are no objective truths. Thus, we ought to reject truth relativism on account of this contradiction.
Because of its limited application, moral relativism avoids the charge of self-refutation. However, there are at least a couple of good reasons to nonetheless reject it. First, besides the logical point that disagreement in beliefs doesn’t imply that both beliefs are true, there is actually significant agreement about moral beliefs across cultures (e.g., regarding beneficence, justice, duties to one’s family). This suggests that there are at least some objective moral truths that we discover rather than decide. Secondly, some moral truths are obviously and objectively true. Adultery, rape, slavery, murder and genocide, for example, are obviously wrong regardless of whether any culture thinks so or not.
What do you think? Are there other reasons why people accept truth relativism or moral relativism? Are there other reasons to reject either one?
Graphic by Victoria Bar
Great points on the futility of relative truth. However, I do find myself disagreeing heavily with your section on moral relativism.
For starters, I reject that "moral relativism makes moral truths dependent not on the individual, but on cultures" because it is an unwarranted stipulation. Morality is at its essence concerned with what an individual finds desirable/undesirable and consequently how the individual *ought* to act. There is no reason for individuals to necessarily derive this from a culture instead of solely their own values. In other words, I am saying that a man who believes that it is good to extinguish human life in the most painful manner possible is not being irrational so long as he values maximal human suffering. He does not *need* to subscribe to a Judeo-Christian culture's values (or that of any culture) and live according to them in order to be a rational moral agent.
Secondly, widespread agreement across individuals/cultures about moral beliefs need not suggest that objective moral truths exist. It is totally possible that said individuals/cultures independently evolved in their preferences so as to arrive at moral beliefs that are coincidentally equivalent to each other. Yet another possibility is that said individuals/cultures all share common beliefs that trace their origin to a single individual/culture - this still need not indicate the reality of objective moral truths that are discovered since it is possible that said individuals/cultures might have found said moral beliefs desirable enough to pass them on from generation to generation.
Furthermore, it is not at all clear to me that some moral truths are obviously and objectively true. The acts that you have mentioned as being "obviously wrong" - adultery, rape, slavery, murder, genocide - were not so obviously immoral to many ancient civilizations. Rape and enslavement were seen by some as good demonstration of one's superiority over another. Even in our present day, the immorality of adultery is being questioned by those who believe in polyamory. Their basic line of reasoning is that it is natural for a person to feel attracted towards more than one other person, and so instead of suppressing these feelings, s/he should indulge them.
All of that said, I do agree with you obviously as a Christian that moral relativism *as you have defined it* is to be rejected because I value a constant and reliable moral authority to which I can submit to and both human civilization and individual preferences are too dynamic to qualify.
I appreciate this straightforward breakdown of the topic. I do think that perhaps the most important reason to reject the notion of truth relativism is that if truth is not objective, knowledge itself has no basis. The acquisition of knowledge is based on the learning of objective truths: historical facts, scientific facts, mathematical facts, linguistic facts, etc. What truth relativism suggests is that absolutely no knowledge that has led us to be able to understand, communicate about, or even define the concept of relativism is true. Essentially, the pursuit of any sort of education, knowledge, or wisdom is rendered utterly meaningless when nothing can be described as objectively true. That is the primary reason why I reject relativism.