Extent to which relativism is justified?

[Qoeleth]

It seems that there are some things which are relative.

For example, in the United States in contemporary times it is acceptable for girls to wear outfits, which, in Puritian times, would have been considered grossly immodest. Similarly, in many cultures, gender roles were strictly determined, whereas today, in the West, such thinking is considered bad. And some people would think saying “D…mnit!” is a sin, while other might thinking nothing of it, or that it is mildly inappropriate.

Furthermore, many saints (like Thomas a Kempis and Francis of Assisi), freely used language describing the body as a prison, but many contemporary thinkers find that unacceptable (cf. another thread going on).

Another example- what might be considered an acceptable level of social interaction (chatter and whispering) in a parish church would be considered grossly irreverent in a monastic church.

However, there does not appear to be a necessary link between things appearing relative, and the actual relativity of the moral quality. It may be that there are absolute standards of right and wrong- but we cannot be sure of what they are (for example, the Puritans might have been absolutely right [or absolutely wrong?] about modesty)

So, there seems three possible responses to the questions:

1. Nothing is relative. Things are either true or false, right or wrong. Perhaps we might not always know the answer, but there is, in principal, a final answer to be found.
2. Some things are relative. But some things are absolute (e.g. the existence of God). Within this position, there seems to be two alternative- either we can know for sure what matters are absolute (faith, morals) and which are relative (fashion, custom), or we do not know, at least with certainty. Clearly some things (like mode of dress, language, use of food, alcohol), could be considered either moral matters, or equally matters of custom.
3. Everything is relative. Truth is simply a construction or convention.

It seems the Position 3 is logically inconsistent, since it is making relativity itself non-relative. But Position 1 and Position 2 both seem to be logically consistent.

If Position 1 is adopted (the “nothing is relative” position), it seems there are two variants. a) That there are always absolutes, but we can’t be sure that we know them, at least entirely; or b) There are always absolutes, and, with the aid of the Church and the Bible, ‘we’ know what they are.

Position 1 (a), seems, in its practical applications, seems to be similar to Position 2. Position 1 (b) seems to be somewhat fundamentalist, and perhaps contrary to the Gospel injunctions to non-judgment, as well as contrary to humility.

I am interested to see how people balance their own positions. At the moment, I am tending towards Position 1 (a), but am not sure of it.

 

[edwest2]

1. Nothing is relative. Everyone, knowingly or unknowingly, accepts certain positions as true.
2. Right is right and wrong is wrong.
3. The effects of external forces, at least regarding how we got from 40 years ago to today, were carefully planned.

Only small cliques of “fashion designers” decide fashion.

Only small groups of publishers decide what is newsworthy and what is not, including making disparaging comments about others.

“Public opinion” is molded.

1. Standards are practiced by those who hold certain views. For them, these standards are absolute for their group.

For Catholics, we are faced with standards that were established long ago and the changing whims of those who desire change, mostly for no good outcome.

Pope Benedict:

"The Holy Father says:

"If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible."

Commentary from the Practical Catholic:

"How true this is. Where there is no communication, no culture, no shared experience, there is no society; because there is no people. There remains only a vast and foreboding, unforgiving sea of individuals ready to crash upon each other and the world with the slightest wind. Without a common basis, we have not the vaulted pluralism we’re taught to embrace, but Babel, in all the confusion and madness of a society with no binding forces. Already we are seeing the tensions of this fragmentation breaking out across cultures.

“Without common values and truths, such as in the socieites we find ourselves in, we find the fabric of society torn like Joseph’s cloak, by a great many tribes which would like to lay claim to the title of favored. Leftists, conservatives, anarchists, nihilists, secularists, objectivists, the shallow, the entertainers, the entertained, all vying for control against each other. Tribalism can indeed spawn differentiation, but without some common ground, and in the face of increasing jargon not only in the academies but in the cultures; we shall be left with madness. In the end this tribalism can only result in the decline of all their claims, and the alienation of one from the other. Babel is the happenstance when society tries to become God.”

"Pope Benedict XVI goes on to say:

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]

Commentary by the Practical Catholic:

“Pope Benedict does not play language games, he is unconcerned with the postmodernist’s corner on untruth. Neither should we be. Notice how he calls relativism a “dictatorship” instead of agreeing that no values and no Truth are the way forward for society. What many fail to recognize is that imposing nihilism and arbitrary tribalism is a form of dictatorship. Where untruth or half truth is the common order, there can only be oppression. Political correctness has asked us to abandon our value-laden language and to pick up a new language proper to the secular forum. However, this secular newspeak is value-laden against the traditional claims of the Western world and as such, is a poison rather than a new order. We can and should bring our own conviction laden language to the table, if we’re going to have any sort of real dialogue at all. Misinformation and restrained convictions are not the proper building blocks for a democracy. The Holy Father offers us a visions of the State according to our Catholic heritage:”

That is all most people need to know.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Qoeleth]

1. Nothing is relative. Everyone, knowingly or unknowingly, accepts certain positions as true.
2. Right is right and wrong is wrong.
3. The effects of external forces, at least regarding how we got from 40 years ago to today, were carefully planned.

Only small cliques of “fashion designers” decide fashion.

Only small groups of publishers decide what is newsworthy and what is not, including making disparaging comments about others.

“Public opinion” is molded.

1. Standards are practiced by those who hold certain views. For them, these standards are absolute for their group.

For Catholics, we are faced with standards that were established long ago and the changing whims of those who desire change, mostly for no good outcome.

Pope Benedict:

"The Holy Father says:

"If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible."

Commentary from the Practical Catholic:

"How true this is. Where there is no communication, no culture, no shared experience, there is no society; because there is no people. There remains only a vast and foreboding, unforgiving sea of individuals ready to crash upon each other and the world with the slightest wind. Without a common basis, we have not the vaulted pluralism we’re taught to embrace, but Babel, in all the confusion and madness of a society with no binding forces. Already we are seeing the tensions of this fragmentation breaking out across cultures.

“Without common values and truths, such as in the socieites we find ourselves in, we find the fabric of society torn like Joseph’s cloak, by a great many tribes which would like to lay claim to the title of favored. Leftists, conservatives, anarchists, nihilists, secularists, objectivists, the shallow, the entertainers, the entertained, all vying for control against each other. Tribalism can indeed spawn differentiation, but without some common ground, and in the face of increasing jargon not only in the academies but in the cultures; we shall be left with madness. In the end this tribalism can only result in the decline of all their claims, and the alienation of one from the other. Babel is the happenstance when society tries to become God.”

"Pope Benedict XVI goes on to say:

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]

Commentary by the Practical Catholic:

“Pope Benedict does not play language games, he is unconcerned with the postmodernist’s corner on untruth. Neither should we be. Notice how he calls relativism a “dictatorship” instead of agreeing that no values and no Truth are the way forward for society. What many fail to recognize is that imposing nihilism and arbitrary tribalism is a form of dictatorship. Where untruth or half truth is the common order, there can only be oppression. Political correctness has asked us to abandon our value-laden language and to pick up a new language proper to the secular forum. However, this secular newspeak is value-laden against the traditional claims of the Western world and as such, is a poison rather than a new order. We can and should bring our own conviction laden language to the table, if we’re going to have any sort of real dialogue at all. Misinformation and restrained convictions are not the proper building blocks for a democracy. The Holy Father offers us a visions of the State according to our Catholic heritage:”

That is all most people need to know.

Peace,
Ed

I largely agree with your position. Certainly, most ‘secularists’ and ‘liberals’, even when they seem to adopt a pseudo-relativism, are interested in pushing their own values. And it is something approaching a real dictatorship.

Most ‘liberals’ are totally intolerant- this is my experience at least. They want to dictate what kind of language you use (‘inclusive language’). They are intent on destroying all true Western art and philosophy.

But this is not the same question as relativism, in a more strictly philosophical sense.

 

[Cathoholic]

Qoeleth. You stated:

It seems that there are some things which are relative.

This is a reasonable assertion outside of certain areas.

Consider what the late Dietrich von Hildebrand said about this concept . . .

"Now, the idea of the mean as the happy medium applies to many instances of rational choice. For example, food should be neither too salty nor saltless; the temperature in a room should be neither too hot nor too cold. When, however, it comes to the exploration of truth, to philosophical controversies, to antithetical approaches to the world, or to opposed world views, the theory of the happy mean does not apply.

Extremes are not incomplete truths

In these questions the truth lies above the two extremes, not between them. In every extreme there is a wandering from the truth into error. Although the reciprocal extremes seem to be completely antagonistic, they actually share the same crucial error. The true position differs from both extremes much more than they differ from each other."

From Trojan Horse in the City of God: The Catholic Crisis Explained
by Dietrich Von Hildebrand (Author), John O’Connor (Foreword) p. 21.

Bold and italics original

 

[Bagheera]

1) Nothing is relative. Things are either true or false, right or wrong. Perhaps we might not always know the answer, but there is, in principal, a final answer to be found.
2) Some things are relative. But some things are absolute (e.g. the existence of God). Within this position, there seems to be two alternative- either we can know for sure what matters are absolute (faith, morals) and which are relative (fashion, custom), or we do not know, at least with certainty. Clearly some things (like mode of dress, language, use of food, alcohol), could be considered either moral matters, or equally matters of custom.
3) Everything is relative. Truth is simply a construction or convention.

Could you clarify what “nothing” and “everything” means in your post? Are you talking about human behavior? Propositions? Principles? Objects? Opinions? And what do you mean by “absolute” and “relative”? Does “absolute” mean: “under any and all circumstances”? And “relative” means: “only in certain circumstances”?

I cannot understand your sentence: “Things are either true or false, right or wrong”. “Things” are objects; and objects either exist, or not. “Opinions” about things can be fully correct, partially correct or incorrect. Please clarify.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Some things are relative. For example, whether it is OK for me to kill a person depends on the situation. If they are trying to kill my daughter, for example, it’s OK.

It does not follow that whether an action is wrong, period. Once we specify every detail about an action, it is either morally permissible or impermissible – there is no wiggle room. How we **know **whether it’s permissible or impermissible is a more difficult question.

 

[Qoeleth]

Could you clarify what “nothing” and “everything” means in your post? Are you talking about human behavior? Propositions? Principles? Objects? Opinions? And what do you mean by “absolute” and “relative”? Does “absolute” mean: “under any and all circumstances”? And “relative” means: “only in certain circumstances”?

I cannot understand your sentence: “Things are either true or false, right or wrong”. “Things” are objects; and objects either exist, or not. “Opinions” about things can be fully correct, partially correct or incorrect. Please clarify.

When I used the sentence, “Things are either true or false, right or wrong,” I was characterizing the view of an absolutist. Obviously, it refers to propositions/judgments about ‘things’, rather than ‘things’ themselves.

I suppose the question about relativism extends to any judgment or proposition. It tends, however, to come into strongest relief in talking about moral judgments. By ‘everything’ or ‘nothing’, I mean, every judgment or no judgment, respectively- not the ‘things’ themselves.

 

[Qoeleth]

Some things are relative. For example, whether it is OK for me to kill a person depends on the situation. If they are trying to kill my daughter, for example, it’s OK.

It does not follow that whether an action is wrong, period. Once we specify every detail about an action, it is either morally permissible or impermissible – there is no wiggle room. How we **know **whether it’s permissible or impermissible is a more difficult question.

So, I suppose the exact circumstances of an action would include its cultural and historical context, a perhaps even the mental state of the agent? But once these (and other circumstances) are given, there is an absolute right and wrong?

That seems to make sense- but given the almost infinite variability of circumstances, this type of absolutism could ‘look’, in practice, something like relativism.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So, I suppose the exact circumstances of an action would include its cultural and historical context, a perhaps even the mental state of the agent? But once these (and other circumstances) are given, there is an absolute right and wrong?

Yes. This is nothing new. Legal judgments have always been made with such contexts in mind. This is a far cry from saying that all legal judgments are subjective. I don’t see why moral judgments would be any different.

Will this look like relativism to some? Sure. But it isn’t relativism.

Moreover, there are some actions which are not relative, in any degree. It is always wrong to force a person to have sex against her will. There are no exceptions there.

 

[Bagheera]

Qoeleth:

I suppose the question about relativism extends to any judgment or proposition. It tends, however, to come into strongest relief in talking about moral judgments.

I don’t think that a proposition “Chocolate ice-cream is better than vanilla” can be characterized either as absolute or relative – it is definitely a subjective proposition. Now, moral judgments are a different problem, but you, yourself pointed out in your opening post that “Clearly some things (like mode of dress, language, use of food, alcohol), could be considered either moral matters, or equally matters of custom.” So there is a problem of even coming to an agreement just what is a moral proposition. In some societies public nudity was acceptable, in others it is not. In small, tribal communities publicly performed sex is perfectly normal.

Such facts make the question: “is there a kind of behavior which is always, under any circumstances unacceptable?” - problematic. For those, who consider the 1) reasons, 2) the ways and 3) the outcome as pertinent it is very unlikely that there are truly “absolute” moral judgments. Yes, we can say that a certain behavior is “wrong” in many or even most circumstances, but one can always find exceptions – which could be very contrived and unlikely. Life boat types of problems come to mind.

But the major problem is the disagreement about “what is a morally upright behavior”? Until that can be settled there can be no real discussion.

 

[tonyrey]

Relativism is justified by the absolute principle that we should always choose the lesser of two - or more - evils. For example, we should not kill unless it is the only way we can save the life of a person who is being unjustly attacked. Our decisions must be relative to our present situation; otherwise we are being unrealistic.

 

[Cathoholic]

Catholicism teaches

The morality of an act depends upon:

• The action itself (the object)
• The intention of the act
• The circumstances of the act

There can be a good or bad aspect to all three of these.
For an act to be good, all three of these must be met as good.

If the action itself is always wrong it is called an “intrinsic evil”.

If you are dealing with an act that is an intrinsic evil, then the intention and/or the circumstances cannot make that action good. That act would always be wrong.

CCC 1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

1. Nothing is relative. Everyone, knowingly or unknowingly, accepts certain positions as true.

Surely you don’t think that’s all it takes for something to be objectively true. If everyone were to agree that red was the best color or that Coke is superior to Pepsi, those things would still be subjective.