Relativism Short Essay

a.) Define what the philosophic concept of relativism is
b.) Pose and analyze a hypothetical situation based on your position on Relativism
c.) Explain why Relativism is or is not a reasonable approach to ethics

Relativism is, as defined by Wikipedia, "the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture." In the dictionary, relativism is "any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments. " Thus, with this ideology, there are no basic human rights, no absolute truths, and there are no moral standards. Truths are relative to the individual. No one moral system has the right to impose its beliefs over another moral system. Key words such as pluralism (truths instead of Truth) and anti-absolutism come into play. There are three types of relativism:

• Cognitive Relativism (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 - Ethics (right and wrong) are dependent upon the situation.

Some aspects of Relativism are justified. Cultural beliefs of what is right and wrong are different and, indeed, they should be; it is our differences around the world that make us individuals. America's great diversity is something that we are proud about. Thus, if the world issued a lengthy list of moral standards that everyone had to follow, we would be denied of that diversity, and ultimately, our individuality. For many culturally accepted beliefs, other societies have no right to impose on these cultures that what they are doing is wrong. For example, in Kenya, women must wear skirts and men must wear pants. A Kenyan woman seen wearing pants would be considered as being unethical. Whereas, in America, women wear "men's clothing" all of the time; it has been culturally accepted for many years. America cannot say that Kenya is in the wrong, nor can Kenya say that we are in the wrong. In this case, moral standards are relative to the social group or individual.

But what if a culture found it socially acceptable to murder citizens past the age of 60? This culture feels that elderly have no further purpose in life, and accordingly so, they murder them to relieve their society of "useless entities". Most of the elderly victims feel otherwise; they want to live, however their opinions are snuffed out as someone comes along and kills them. Don't we have a right to impose our moral standards on these people to show them that they are being unethical? These people are oppressing the elderly citizens by not considering their side of the situation. They are ruthlessly killing elderly people because they feel that it is right to do so. I believe that there are lines that societies cross. And when that line is crossed, people are justified to do something about it, otherwise, chaos will ensue. Sure, it's okay for cultures to believe that it is unethical to eat meat, but it is another thing to believe that it is right to murder people for unnecessary reasons. Those elderly, along with everyone else in the world, have basic human rights, one of which is the opportunity to live. No man has a right to deny them of that opportunity.

Relativism alone is not a reasonable approach to ethics. If the world was full of relativists, then we would live in complete anarchy. People who thought murdering was acceptable would consequentially go on murdering rampages. Meanwhile, people would just go "Oh, that's okay, if murdering is relative to their beliefs, then they have every right to do so." For human beings to coexist, it is essential for us to know that there are some absolute truths among us: water is wet, fire is hot, and we all deserve some basic human rights, regardless of where we are in the world. It is also essential for humanity to have some relativism in them: culturally different moral standards are okay, just as long as those differences do not deny us of our basic human rights. I guess to sum it up, a reasonable approach to ethics would have this balance of relativism and anti-relativism; people have a right to their own opinions, but when those opinions turn into actions that threaten our survival, then something must be done. As quoted by Urd Yggradsil in a BBC News article;

"Society changes, it has to to survive. This, by definition, means that all societies that want to prosper over long periods of time are 'relative'. If you lived in an 'absolute' world, we would still believe slavery was fine, that monarchs were divine beings and we should never leave our place."

Thus, if we all adapt to the universally accepted smaller truths as times change and if we at the same time abide by the larger Truths, then we might be able to prosper forever.

Further Resources:

Watch this video to see how relativism works in some cases but fails in others.
Watch this video to see how relativism has played a role in the decline of well-behaved children.