Relativism

“Man is the measure of all things, of the things which are, that they are, and of the things which are not, that they are not… Each thing appears to me, so it is for me, and as it appears to you, so it is for you—you and I each being a man.” – Protagoras, as quoted by Plato in his Theaetetus. This is the first known writing on relativism, a worldview that is common in culture today.

Basically, relativism is the idea that everything is relative and nothing is absolute. Truth, knowledge, and morality are relative to culture, society, or individuals’ opinions. According to Stanford.edu, “Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them.”

Relativism is difficult to define precisely because the term has been applied to many different doctrines. However, scholars agree that there are three main possible ways to define it.

• Defining relativism by co-variance.

The co-variance definition states that everything is dependent on current social trend and norms; it co-varies with it. Culture co-varies with trends and no one culture is right or wrong. Morality co-varies with lawmakers and the opinions of the masses. Knowledge and truth co-vary with the most commonly accepted theories. Every individual preference is equally valid.

Co-variance is seen to breed tolerance. People are unwilling to impose their views on other people because all views are just trends and are equally valid.

• Defining relativism by contrast.

Defining relativism by contrast means that instead of finding what relativism affirms, we simply find what it denies. What worldviews does it contrast with? Some examples are:

• • Absolutism. Absolutism states that at least some principles are absolute. Whatever principles these are, they are not bound by history, by social norms, by law, or by opinions. They cannot be changed and continue to exist as truth no matter how much they are denied.
  • Objectivism. According to objectivism, all things have objective qualities that exist independent from our opinions. For example, truth, beauty, and goodness exist independently from anyone’s beliefs and something can be true, beautiful, or good whether or not we consider it so. Anti-objectivists would argue that we can only claim something is true or beautiful relative to something that would be considered not so. To an anti-objectivist, chocolate only tastes delicious because we have also tastes things that are bitter or sour. To an objectivist, chocolate is delicious either way.
  • Monism. Monism postulates that there can only be one correct outcome for any given dispute, or one correct opinion for any given controversy. Relativists would argue that every point of view is equally valid, even ones that contradict each other.

These worldviews are commonly used to illustrate what relativism is not. They contradict the main ideas of relativism.

• Defining relativism by parameters

Under parameter relativism, claims to justification, morality, or truth only exist relative to some

sort of parameter. For example, the parameter of a country’s law; the parameter of a club’s bylaws; the parameters of the cultural norms of 1800s France. When we say, “It is wrong to sell people as slaves,” what we really mean is “It is wrong to sell people as slaves relative to the moral code of such-and-such.” This sentence, “It is wrong to sell people as slaves,” is true according to the moral code of the current US but false according to the moral codes of ancient Greece. Without a parameter, the sentence “it is wrong to sell people as slaves” has no meaning because it’s independent of standards.

Although philosophers have had difficulty defining relativism exactly, most definitions of relativism include the ideas that truth is relative and not absolute, and that a culture’s or an individual’s opinion rule morality.

Many different thing are relativized, including knowledge, reality, and morality. In an article, Stephen Garofalo breaks down these three kinds of relativism. Epistemological relativism deals with relativizing knowledge. It holds that even if there can be universal truth, truth is not within human knowledge. No amount of science, history, or other study can reveal the truth. It’s unknowable. It’s relative. Metaphysical relativism talks about reality. Reality has no absolutes, and nowhere within it can we find truth. Lastly, moral relativism handles morality. According to Stephen Garofalo, “It holds to the belief that morality is not absolute or consistent for all people, but can be defined differently by different cultures, subcultures, and religions, according to experience, taste, and personal feelings.  As a result, a particular behavior can be deemed right for you but not for me.”

Like everything, relativism has its pros and its cons. Supporters of relativism argue that it promotes open-mindedness and an appreciation for the diversity and complexity of humanity. In accepting every person’s and every culture’s beliefs, we become kinder and more tolerant. In addition, relativism helps to make sense of many different opposing standards, cultures, and doctrines without the burden of deciding who is incorrect. Paul Fayerabend says, “A free society is a society in which all traditions are given equal rights.” Relativism provides opportunity for “faultless disagreements,” in which two parties with opposing viewpoints agree that neither one is at fault and both of their viewpoints are equally valid.

However, dissenters claim that relativism can provide moral ambiguity. The store owner is of the opinion that stealing is wrong, while the thief is of the opinion that stealing is perfectly fine. If both points of view are equally valid, how do we solve this contradiction? It seems that morality must be absolute, universal, and correct. “Morality” means what we should do and what we should not do; it means the correct way to behave. But under relativism, there is no “correct” way and there is no universal “should.”

In order for one thing to be universally true, there must be some sort of “meta-justification.” Mere humans do not have the capacity or the authority to decide what is universally true. This principle makes relativism logical to those who don’t believe in a higher power that determines morality.

It is important to note the difference between relativism of principle and relativism of utterance. The things we say are relativized out of necessity; the sentence “I am cold,” for example, may be true or false depending on who is speaking it. This is indisputable. Under relativism, principles, such as “It is wrong to sell people as slaves,” would be the same. If a current US citizen spoke this sentence, its truth value would be considered true because of the moral code of the citizen. If an ancient Greek spoke this sentence, the truth value would be considered false. However, under worldviews like absolutism, principles would be considered to always have the same truth value no matter who is speaking them. Whether spoken by a current US citizen or by an ancient Greek, it would still be either true or false.

In conclusion, relativism has many different definitions and many different types. However, all of them have a coherent pattern, which can be described by Wilhelm Traugott Krug, as quoted by Stanford.edu. “[Relativism is] the assumption that everything which we experience and think (the self, the idea of reason, truth, morality, religion etc.) is only something relative, and therefore has no essential endurance and no universal validity.”

Bibliography

Baghramian, Maria, and J. Adam Carter. “Relativism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Fall 2020, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2020, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/#BriHisOldIde.

Garofalo, Stephen. “What Is Relativism? | SES.” Ses.edu, 18 July 2017, https://ses.edu/what-is-relativism/.

MacFarlane, John. “Future Contingents and Relative Truth.” The Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 212, July 2003, https://johnmacfarlane.net/futcon-offprint.pdf. Accessed 7 Aug. 2024.

Westacott, Emrys. “Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://iep.utm.edu/relativi/.