Relativism: the Challenge

[Charlemagne_III]

Relativism: the Challenge

As per the case that Elton Trueblood poses in his book The Philosophy of Religion, explaining the difference between relativism and objectivism can be approached this way.

Two men are in separate rooms of a three room house. Each room in the house has a separate thermostat control. One of the men is in a room with 90 degrees of heat. The other is in a room set at 50 degrees. They both enter simultaneously a room between them set at 70 degrees. The man from the cold room finds this room warm. The man from the hot room finds this room cool.

The argument of the relativist is that this proves the relativity of room temperatures per the individual’s personal experience. The argument of the objectivist is that the third room is neither hot nor cold, but set at a an objectively tolerable temperature. However, there is a caveat. The objectivist argues that you have to stay in that room and let your body study the real temperature long enough to find out that it is objectively tolerable, neither too warm nor too cool.

The relativist should answer this argument. How does he answer it? Is relativism the final way to judge the truth about anything, that truth is what you feel it is; or is there an objective truth independent of what anyone might sense at a given moment that is waiting to be found both by the objectivist and the relativist?

What say you?

 

[Oreoracle]

Relativism is, in my experience, usually invoked in contexts in which truth values aren’t involved. For example, “This painting is beautiful” has no truth value. This is why beauty is taken to be relative.

An objectivist might counter by offering a mechanism by which we can measure beauty in the way that we would measure something like temperature. The problem is that “beauty” is defined in such a way that it will depend on the subject’s preferences. Temperature is defined in a way that allows for its objective measurement.

So the short and simple answer is that it boils down to definitions.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Relativism is, in my experience, usually invoked in contexts in which truth values aren’t involved. For example, “This painting is beautiful” has no truth value. This is why beauty is taken to be relative.

I suppose a beautiful sunrise panorama over the ocean on a beach in Florida would not be beautiful to some.

But it’s difficult for me to believe that those “some” are fully humanized enough to objectively judge the difference between the beautiful and the ugly.

 

[Flagstone]

Relativism: the Challenge

As per the case that Elton Trueblood poses in his book The Philosophy of Religion, explaining the difference between relativism and objectivism can be approached this way.

Two men are in separate rooms of a three room house. Each room in the house has a separate thermostat control. One of the men is in a room with 90 degrees of heat. The other is in a room set at 50 degrees. They both enter simultaneously a room between them set at 70 degrees. The man from the cold room finds this room warm. The man from the hot room finds this room cool.

The argument of the relativist is that this proves the relativity of room temperatures per the individual’s personal experience. The argument of the objectivist is that the third room is neither hot nor cold, but set at a an objectively tolerable temperature. However, there is a caveat. The objectivist argues that you have to stay in that room and let your body study the real temperature long enough to find out that it is objectively tolerable, neither too warm nor too cool.

The relativist should answer this argument. How does he answer it? Is relativism the final way to judge the truth about anything, that truth is what you feel it is; or is there an objective truth independent of what anyone might sense at a given moment that is waiting to be found both by the objectivist and the relativist?

What say you?

I don’t know if this analogy really works. Different people can be in the same room and think differently. At work I’ll be wearing shorts and a short sleeve shirt and feel quite warm while a female coworker will be wearing a sweater and feel cold. It seems to be just a matter of opinion.

 

[wildfood]

I don’t know where I stand on relativism and objectivism, but all week I’ve been thinking that the Widow’s Mite is a biblical example of relativism.

 

[Flagstone]

I suppose a beautiful sunrise panorama over the ocean on a beach in Florida would not be beautiful to some.

But it’s difficult for me to believe that those “some” are fully humanized enough to objectively judge the difference between the beautiful and the ugly.

Again, I don’t really like palm trees or the heat and humidity. Am i not fully humanized?

 

[Oreoracle]

I suppose a beautiful sunrise panorama over the ocean on a beach in Florida would not be beautiful to some.

But it’s difficult for me to believe that those “some” are fully humanized enough to objectively judge the difference between the beautiful and the ugly.

I suppose the objectivist could use “beautiful” in the usual sense of “attractive or pleasing to the subject” and then invent the term “objectively beautiful” which would mean something like “the majority of humans find this beautiful”.

This would be objective, because “the majority of humans find X beautiful” has a truth value. The truth value of “X is objectively beautiful” would, however, depend on the feelings of subjects, although not on any particular subject (unless only one human exists).

 

[Bradski]

I suppose the objectivist could use “beautiful” in the usual sense of “attractive or pleasing to the subject” and then invent the term “objectively beautiful” which would mean something like “the majority of humans find this beautiful”.

As regards beauty: each of the men is in a room with a woman. One is old and haggard, another young and remarkably beautiful. If they go into a room with a rather plain looking girl, do they see her differently?

But I don’t think you can say ‘the majority’. Otherwise it’s nothing more than a vote to see what is right and what’s wrong. I would say ‘all reasonable people’. But then you have to define ‘reasonable’.

 

[Oreoracle]

But I don’t think you can say ‘the majority’. Otherwise it’s nothing more than a vote to see what is right and what’s wrong. I would say ‘all reasonable people’. But then you have to define ‘reasonable’.

Sure, but my question would be why it’s important for beauty to be a matter of right and wrong in the first place. We wouldn’t let the matter of temperature be settled by the consensus of subjects’ feelings, of course, because temperature is used to describe phenomena independently of how they are experienced. Thus we define temperature in an objective fashion: it is the average kinetic energy of the molecules of the object (or something along those lines).

But in the case of beauty, the whole point of discussing aesthetics is to take subjects’ feelings into account. So why would I want to take a perfectly good tool for describing these subjective preferences and try to make it objective? If I find something beautiful, I can cite my reasons for feeling that way and listen to others’ feelings all without tampering with the definition of “beauty”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Some things are relative (heat). Some things aren’t (taxes). Where’s the problem?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Oh, and there aren’t any relativists, so far as I can tell. So it’s just tilting at windmills.

 

[Bradski]

Sure, but my question would be why it’s important for beauty to be a matter of right and wrong in the first place

Sorry, it was a clumsy post on my part. I agree with you in regard to beauty (in the eye of the beholder and all that).

But for other matters where someone would suggest that there is an objective morality, then a simple majority couldn’t define what is right or wrong. Probably not even if everyone agreed (slavery?).

And utilitarianism has to incorporate, almost by definition, relativism (if it’s for the greater good, then someone loses out).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t know if this analogy really works. Different people can be in the same room and think differently. At work I’ll be wearing shorts and a short sleeve shirt and feel quite warm while a female coworker will be wearing a sweater and feel cold. It seems to be just a matter of opinion.

The temperature is objectively the same in both cases. But if you jack the temperature up to 90 degrees, you will both exit the room promptly.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Again, I don’t really like palm trees or the heat and humidity. Am i not fully humanized?

There are people who don’t like morality of any type and are only for themselves.

Are they full humanized (civilized)?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t know where I stand on relativism and objectivism, but all week I’ve been thinking that the Widow’s Mite is a biblical example of relativism.

Why?

Objectively she gave more than she could afford. Objectively, others gave less than they could afford. Objectively she was the more generous.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Some things are immediatelt discernible as beautiful, even by a child.

I remember an occasion of watching a television performance of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony.

During the 4th Movement, the five-years olds playing in front of the television stopped their play and sat entranced by the music.

Even a child, never mind an adult, could hear something objectively extraordinary.

I suppose some people would leave the room. Are they civilized enough to understand great objective beauty when it shouts at them?

Have their minds ever stopped to study (Trueblood’s word) anything objectively beautiful?

By the way, music, like heat, can also be measured.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But in the case of beauty, the whole point of discussing aesthetics is to take subjects’ feelings into account.

Not quite, the point of aesthetics is to determine why something is objectively beautiful and something else is objectively ugly. This requires an assessment of the artist’s ability, not just the feelings of the person looking at his art.

An art teacher always challenges his students to do better. By doing that he (and we) know there is an objective better; otherwise the student could say, “My work doesn’t need to be better; it’s really as good as it can get.”

 

[wildfood]

Why?

Objectively she gave more than she could afford. Objectively, others gave less than they could afford. Objectively she was the more generous.

Because objectively she gave less, but the value was relatively greater. But your point is well taken.

 

[Oreoracle]

But for other matters where someone would suggest that there is an objective morality, then a simple majority couldn’t define what is right or wrong. Probably not even if everyone agreed (slavery?).

Yes, I often find these terms confusing. I think we need to distinguish claims that are subjective (their meaning depends on how the subject uttering the claim feels) from claims that are objective but whose truth depends on subjects (their meaning is clear, but their truth value varies as subjects’ feelings do). So, using beauty as an example, “this painting is beautiful” is of the former type, whereas “I think this painting is beautiful” is of the latter type.

I think we may be able to agree that morality is subjective in the sense that, if I merely say “X is good”, it is a claim of the former type. But if I define what is good in terms of something that is true or false (in utilitarianism, good things promote happiness, and the claim “so-and-so is happy” is true or false for a suitable definition of “happiness”), then “X is good” is a claim of the latter type.

And utilitarianism has to incorporate, almost by definition, relativism (if it’s for the greater good, then someone loses out).

I feel that that may be an oversimplification of utilitarianism, but I won’t pursue the topic further because Charlemagne III has proven to me that he cannot discuss utilitarianism with an open mind. I will only say that “X is good” in utilitarianism is a claim of the latter type, because it is defined in terms of something that is true or false.

 

[Oreoracle]

Charlemagne III,

You seem to believe in objective beauty. What is your position on, say, the artwork “White on White”? It is literally a painting of a piece of white paper on a white desk. Many people believe this to be beautiful and that other much more elaborate works are inferior. What say you?