Relativity in the modern world

[PadraigPearce]

I’ve been wondering about the philosophical origins of the relativism in the world today. How is it that most people I talk to don’t seem to think that truth exists, or if it does, that we can know it. I know this is a pretty broad topic, but it bugs me when I talk to smart people and they seem to deny the existence of truth. Is this just intellectual laziness on most people’s part or have certain streams of modern philosophy influenced people into believing in a plurality of truth? I was having a discussion with some friends about Islam and their version of Jesus, and when I said I thought Islam was wrong and Christianity right about Jesus, my friends were all shocked andsaid I was closed minded, and that both versions were correct, even though this is logically impossible because one version of Jesus contradicts the other. It’s really quite maddening to hear this kind of thing coming from otherwise logical people.

 

[Nita]

Well, it was around at the time of Our Lord. Pilate seems to have been a relativist, at least to some degree.

John 18:38 Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?”

 

[bobzills]

I’ve been wondering about the philosophical origins of the relativism in the world today. How is it that most people I talk to don’t seem to think that truth exists, or if it does, that we can know it. I know this is a pretty broad topic, but it bugs me when I talk to smart people and they seem to deny the existence of truth. Is this just intellectual laziness on most people’s part or have certain streams of modern philosophy influenced people into believing in a plurality of truth? I was having a discussion with some friends about Islam and their version of Jesus, and when I said I thought Islam was wrong and Christianity right about Jesus, my friends were all shocked andsaid I was closed minded, and that both versions were correct, even though this is logically impossible because one version of Jesus contradicts the other. It’s really quite maddening to hear this kind of thing coming from otherwise logical people.

It is possible to attain truth in mathematics, and in the real world we can get close to truth, but perhaps in some cases we do not actually reach it. Similarly in religion. Some of the teachings may not be the complete and total truth. Take for example the Catholic teaching that marriage is indissoluble and that when you get married you are married for life. This sounds true, but where I would have a problem with it being the complete truth, is that there is a big loophole which is being overlooked- the loophole of easy to get marriage annulments. What is to prevent your wife from saying ten years from now, that she had a revelation and that only now after twenty years of marriage does she realise that she really did not know what she was doing when she exchanged her marriage vows? And she files for an annulment on the basis of psychological defect of consent at the time of exchange of vows? Of course she does not mention her new boy friend, and the tribunal then declares the marriage to have been invalid and she gets to marry her latest boyfriend in the Catholic Church?

 

[Leela]

I’ve been wondering about the philosophical origins of the relativism in the world today. How is it that most people I talk to don’t seem to think that truth exists, or if it does, that we can know it. I know this is a pretty broad topic, but it bugs me when I talk to smart people and they seem to deny the existence of truth. Is this just intellectual laziness on most people’s part or have certain streams of modern philosophy influenced people into believing in a plurality of truth? I was having a discussion with some friends about Islam and their version of Jesus, and when I said I thought Islam was wrong and Christianity right about Jesus, my friends were all shocked andsaid I was closed minded, and that both versions were correct, even though this is logically impossible because one version of Jesus contradicts the other. It’s really quite maddening to hear this kind of thing coming from otherwise logical people.

I don’t think you’ll find any philosophical origins of relativism because there is no such thing as a relativist. If there were, it would be trivially easy to dimiss the arguments of such a person since if no belief is better or worse than any other than there would be no reason to think that the belief that there is no such thing as truth is any better than the belief that there is such a thing as truth. I suspect that what you are taking as a denial of truth to be the denial of what you hold as true.

As to the question of the truth of a particular religion, if we take the orthodox views of Islam and Christianity, they both teach that the othe religion is false. In that regard, I think they are both true. Is that what you mean by the plurality of truth?

 

[Nita]

I’ve been wondering about the philosophical origins of the relativism in the world today. How is it that most people I talk to don’t seem to think that truth exists, or if it does, that we can know it. I know this is a pretty broad topic, but it bugs me when I talk to smart people and they seem to deny the existence of truth. Is this just intellectual laziness on most people’s part or have certain streams of modern philosophy influenced people into believing in a plurality of truth? I was having a discussion with some friends about Islam and their version of Jesus, and when I said I thought Islam was wrong and Christianity right about Jesus, my friends were all shocked andsaid I was closed minded, and that both versions were correct, even though this is logically impossible because one version of Jesus contradicts the other. It’s really quite maddening to hear this kind of thing coming from otherwise logical people.

You’re actually including two different things in your post: relativism and skepticism.

Relativism holds that “truth itself is relative to the standpoint of the judging subject”
answers.com/topic/relativism
In other words, a relativist believes there’s truth, but it’s relative to each individual - depends on each individual.

Skepticism doubts whether the truth can be known (in certain areas).
A skeptic doubts there is such a thing as truth.

The underlined portion in your post is an example of “skepticismn”, not relativism.
The bolded portion in your post would be an example of “relativism”.

 

[Dameedna]

I’ve been wondering about the philosophical origins of the relativism in the world today. How is it that most people I talk to don’t seem to think that truth exists, or if it does, that we can know it. I know this is a pretty broad topic, but it bugs me when I talk to smart people and they seem to deny the existence of truth. Is this just intellectual laziness on most people’s part or have certain streams of modern philosophy influenced people into believing in a plurality of truth? I was having a discussion with some friends about Islam and their version of Jesus, and when I said I thought Islam was wrong and Christianity right about Jesus, my friends were all shocked andsaid I was closed minded, and that both versions were correct, even though this is logically impossible because one version of Jesus contradicts the other. It’s really quite maddening to hear this kind of thing coming from otherwise logical people.

I’m responding to your original post, before I read anything else in this thread.

Relativism. That everything is primarily relative to ourselves, and not to a higher being.(At least how religious people see it)

Relativism, is the ultimate irony, imo. Because when we say that something must be “higher than us” we forget…that it is US…that is saying so. We have made that choice.We have chosen the higher power we submit to. Our choice…is relative to ourselves. Doesn’t mater if we call it God, christianity, Islam…or oompaloompas. It’s still a human choice. Everything is relative…if it wasn’t, there’d be no free will.

The world has never, nor will it ever live in accordance with absolutes, even if we can understand logically that they exist. Even our views that Logic and rational thought as being important…is our own human understanding,and choice to embrace. It works…but for how long?

Religion used to embrace humanity and invite us toward the mystery of the unknown, to search far and wide toward that which we so yearned but did not understand. The philosophers of old were not afraid.

Now, any challenge to religion and even the concept that religion could be a human, relative phenomenom is furiously battled against. You cannot see it as anythiing but…a human dilema if you have any integrity at all.

It has become a debate, about who is more clever, who is more rational, and who can win the debate.

Religion used to be about embracing all that we experienced as humans, and all that we could do to learn from it. Now…it’s about staying safe, knowing the rules…and doing it right.

People forget…their God Jesus.

 

[Shike]

Relativism, is the ultimate irony, imo. Because when we say that something must be “higher than us” we forget…that it is US…that is saying so. We have made that choice.We have chosen the higher power we submit to. Our choice…is relative to ourselves. Doesn’t mater if we call it God, christianity, Islam…or oompaloompas. It’s still a human choice.

okay…

Everything is relative…if it wasn’t, there’d be no free will.

Doh! You move from our choices are relative to us, since we are the ones that make them - to - everything is relative. “Everything” in my book means truth, values, etc.

Basically, just because our choices are relative to us (in that we are the ones that choose) doesn’t mean what we are choosing is relative.

“There are no absolutes!” – are you absolutely sure?

peace,
Michael

 

[otjm]

It has been said (correctly or otherwise) that Relativism can be traced back to the philosphy of Descartes. As far as ethics, it may go back further then 50 years ago, but a good deal of current relativism in ethics and morals goes to the Episcopalian priest Joseph Fletcher, in the 1960’s, who came up with Situational Ethics.

However, those both go to people who are of a more intellectual bent. A tremendous amount of relativism is due to people who are a) intellectually lazy; b) poorly taught; c) and those who have a need for relativism, which usually gets down to a moral issue, and that, primarily a sexual issue. In other words, people move from a want (sexual license) to relativism as a means of justifying to themselves and to others their bending and/or breaking fo the moral code.

But even for those who follow a general moral code of sexual activity (that is, those who at least approach the 10 Commandments as something other than the 10 Suggestions), there is a good deal of relativism as people are not taught logic, or taught it extremely poorly, and our educational system by and large is not rigorous. In short, people are sloppy, lazy, uncurious thinkers who are more inclined to watch the idiot box than to read; more inclined to read a “dimestore” novel than a truly engaging one; more inclined to get a fast answer on the internet than actually do spome research, and spend most of their time thinking about trivia rather than anything intellectually stimulating. The net result is that they all too easily buy into the politically correct philosophy of the masses - Relativism.

 

[bobzills]

It has been said (correctly or otherwise) that Relativism can be traced back to the philosphy of Descartes. As far as ethics, it may go back further then 50 years ago, but a good deal of current relativism in ethics and morals goes to the Episcopalian priest Joseph Fletcher, in the 1960’s, who came up with Situational Ethics.

However, those both go to people who are of a more intellectual bent. A tremendous amount of relativism is due to people who are a) intellectually lazy; b) poorly taught; c) and those who have a need for relativism, which usually gets down to a moral issue, and that, primarily a sexual issue. In other words, people move from a want (sexual license) to relativism as a means of justifying to themselves and to others their bending and/or breaking fo the moral code.

But even for those who follow a general moral code of sexual activity (that is, those who at least approach the 10 Commandments as something other than the 10 Suggestions), there is a good deal of relativism as people are not taught logic, or taught it extremely poorly, and our educational system by and large is not rigorous. In short, people are sloppy, lazy, uncurious thinkers who are more inclined to watch the idiot box than to read; more inclined to read a “dimestore” novel than a truly engaging one; more inclined to get a fast answer on the internet than actually do spome research, and spend most of their time thinking about trivia rather than anything intellectually stimulating. The net result is that they all too easily buy into the politically correct philosophy of the masses - Relativism.

Doesn;t the Roman Catholic Church officially teach relativistic ethics and morality? For example, they will say that Natural family planning is wrong if you have the means and ability to have children but refuse for selfish reasons, whereas, Natural Family Planning is right if you have already had several children and can’t afford to have more for financial and health reasons? So whether or not it is a sin to use Natural family planning is relative to your situation. Here we have both relativistic morality and situational morality at the same time.

 

[InMariesGrace]

Doesn;t the Roman Catholic Church officially teach relativistic ethics and morality? For example, they will say that Natural family planning is wrong if you have the means and ability to have children but refuse for selfish reasons, whereas, Natural Family Planning is right if you have already had several children and can’t afford to have more for financial and health reasons? So whether or not it is a sin to use Natural family planning is relative to your situation. Here we have both relativistic morality and situational morality at the same time.

Actually, it is the selfishness that is sinful, not the NFP. :getholy: Sin is not relative, though we have no right to judge others because we cannot see other people’s hearts and true motives most of the time.

 

[otjm]

Doesn;t the Roman Catholic Church officially teach relativistic ethics and morality? For example, they will say that Natural family planning is wrong if you have the means and ability to have children but refuse for selfish reasons, whereas, Natural Family Planning is right if you have already had several children and can’t afford to have more for financial and health reasons? So whether or not it is a sin to use Natural family planning is relative to your situation. Here we have both relativistic morality and situational morality at the same time.

Not even.

The Church teaches that married couples must be open to life. As part of that teaching, the Church teaches that the actual implementation of that - that is, how many children - is not dictated; it is up to the couple based on a number of issues to be considered. Intending to have no (zero) children is not being open to life.

Being open to life is a choice; the choice is not to have “x” number of children, but is a choice that, having had some children, the matter is not that one must have a multitude.

Relativism would say that one would not need to be open to life or one could choose to be open to life and the two choices are the same moral value. The Church does not teach that; it teaches that they are of different moral values; being open to life is positive moral value and not being open to life is negative (wrong, immoral, sinfull) value.

NFP is neither right nor wrong per se; it is the use of it that may be right or wrong . The Church says that one of the natural ends of sexual intercourse, and the primary one, is the procreation of children. NFP is an acceptible means of determining how many and of what spacing one has those children. But refusing to be open to children and using NFP as the means does not make NFP relativistic in terms of morality; the issue is not NFP but the choice behind NFP, and that choice is not relativistic - it is absolute; you either are open to life or you are not. Having had one, or more, one can determine from that point which is the better good - more children, or not more children, and that choice can be in itself either good or bad.

 

[bobzills]

Not even.

The Church teaches that married couples must be open to life. As part of that teaching, the Church teaches that the actual implementation of that - that is, how many children - is not dictated; it is up to the couple based on a number of issues to be considered. Intending to have no (zero) children is not being open to life.

Being open to life is a choice; the choice is not to have “x” number of children, but is a choice that, having had some children, the matter is not that one must have a multitude.

Relativism would say that one would not need to be open to life or one could choose to be open to life and the two choices are the same moral value. The Church does not teach that; it teaches that they are of different moral values; being open to life is positive moral value and not being open to life is negative (wrong, immoral, sinfull) value.

NFP is neither right nor wrong per se; it is the use of it that may be right or wrong . The Church says that one of the natural ends of sexual intercourse, and the primary one, is the procreation of children. NFP is an acceptible means of determining how many and of what spacing one has those children. But refusing to be open to children and using NFP as the means does not make NFP relativistic in terms of morality; the issue is not NFP but the choice behind NFP, and that choice is not relativistic - it is absolute; you either are open to life or you are not. Having had one, or more, one can determine from that point which is the better good - more children, or not more children, and that choice can be in itself either good or bad.

Whether or not NFP is right or wrong is relative to the situation of a given couple.

 

[Leela]

Whether or not NFP is right or wrong is relative to the situation of a given couple.

Good example. Also, consider that murder is always wrong but not all killing is murder. In fact, murder is wrong simply by definion. Murder is wrong killing. Claiming that murder is ABSOLUTELY wrong is a position that still takles into account the circumstances of a killing. So this whole absolutism/relativism is a false choice. Everyone agrees that the circumstances surrounding an act matter in considering the morality of it. In fact, Christianity puts a strong emphasis in not just the act itself but the intention in performing an act.

The issue is not relativism versus absolutism. It is a question of whether or not you think there are eternal moral principles that exist somewhere out there for humans to discover and then conform to. People like myself who get labelled “relativists” do not argue that nothing is better or worse than anything else or that nothing is true. We just don’t think the goal of inquiry is to find such ethical truths since we would never know when we have gotten closer to them or even if we have found them (since we reject divine revellation). Instead our goal with regard to ethics must be one for which we can actually measure our progress. Our goal is to open ourselves to broader and deeper communities, to foster a sense of empathy for more and more people, and take the needs of wider and wider communities of people into account. People who demonize us as “relativists” actually tend to share the same goals.

Best,
Leela

 

[bobzills]

Good example. Also, consider that murder is always wrong but not all killing is murder. In fact, murder is wrong simply by definion. Murder is wrong killing. Claiming that murder is ABSOLUTELY wrong is a position that still takles into account the circumstances of a killing. So this whole absolutism/relativism is a false choice. Everyone agrees that the circumstances surrounding an act matter in considering the morality of it. In fact, Christianity puts a strong emphasis in not just the act itself but the intention in performing an act.

The issue is not relativism versus absolutism. It is a question of whether or not you think there are eternal moral principles that exist somewhere out there for humans to discover and then conform to. People like myself who get labelled “relativists” do not argue that nothing is better or worse than anything else or that nothing is true. We just don’t think the goal of inquiry is to find such ethical truths since we would never know when we have gotten closer to them or even if we have found them (since we reject divine revellation). Instead our goal with regard to ethics must be one for which we can actually measure our progress. Our goal is to open ourselves to broader and deeper communities, to foster a sense of empathy for more and more people, and take the needs of wider and wider communities of people into account. People who demonize us as “relativists” actually tend to share the same goals.

Best,
Leela

Whether or not killing is wrong is also relative to the situation. For example, killing a clerk in a bank robbery is wrong, but a prison guard pulling the switch and killing a murderer on death row after he enters the gas changer is not wrong. Killing in self defense is not wrong.

 

[otjm]

Whether or not NFP is right or wrong is relative to the situation of a given couple.

No, NFP is right for all couples, as NFP in and of itself is morally permissible; it does not frustrate the natural ends of the sexual act. In other words, NFP is not, in some instances morally a sin.

The sin is not in using NFP; the sin is in not being open to children. Whether they use NFP, the Pill or a condom, or refuse to have intercourse, the sin is the refusal to have children.
You are misudnerstanding the term “relativisim” as it relates to morality.

Relativism in regards to morality says there is no intrinsic or absolutes about acts; they are only morally right or wrong based on circumstances - so sexual conduct between two married people according to relativism could be morally permissible, for example, if they are in a “permanent” (meaning long term not married) relationship. The Church holds that sexual activity outside marriage is intrinsically wrong.

So the issue is not “is NFP in some instances morally wrong”; the issue is “is being closed off to children totally” morally right or wrong - the Church says that it is wrong.

Being closed off to children at a certain point, but not closed of totally to children, is not the same issue because moral law does not require one to have a child at any specific instance. So one could decide that one will have children, but none until the spouse has graduated from school, and this is not being closed off totally to children, and is within morally permissible timing of when to have children. That is not relativism, as one is not saying that being totally close off and not totally closed off are morally equivalent.

 

[Shike]

We just don’t think the goal of inquiry is to find such ethical truths since we would never know when we have gotten closer to them or even if we have found them (since we reject divine revellation).

Instead our goal with regard to ethics must be one for which we can actually measure our progress. Our goal is to open ourselves to broader and deeper communities, to foster a sense of empathy for more and more people, and take the needs of wider and wider communities of people into account.

How can one measure their progress without having some fixed point, ie. unchanging moral principles? Just curious.

 

[bobzills]

No, NFP is right for all couples, as NFP in and of itself is morally permissible;.

So it is OK for a married couple to decide to use NFP to prevent the birth of children for the entire marriage. Generally, they prefer a life living together with no children, even though they have lots of money.

 

[Leela]

How can one measure their progress without having some fixed point, ie. unchanging moral principles? Just curious.

I said, “Our goal is to open ourselves to broader and deeper communities, to foster a sense of empathy for more and more people, and take the needs of wider and wider communities of people into account.” This is a goal that we can make progress on. Clearly abolishing slavery is an example of moral progress in this regard. Extending voting rights to African Americans also took the needs of a wider community better into account. We don’t have to imagine a perfect standard of morality to compare to and ask WWJD? We can instead ask ourselves what human beings would do if we were more sensitive to the needs of others.

 

[Shike]

I said, “Our goal is to open ourselves to broader and deeper communities, to foster a sense of empathy for more and more people, and take the needs of wider and wider communities of people into account.” This is a goal that we can make progress on. Clearly abolishing slavery is an example of moral progress in this regard. Extending voting rights to African Americans also took the needs of a wider community better into account. We don’t have to imagine a perfect standard of morality to compare to and ask WWJD? We can instead ask ourselves what human beings would do if we were more sensitive to the needs of others.

Yes, but being more sensitive to the needs of others seems a lot like an absolute, moral principle.

You don’t need to imagine a standard of morality… there just needs to be one in place.

 

[Leela]

Yes, but being more sensitive to the needs of others seems a lot like an absolute, moral principle.

It should look something like an absolute moral principle but also not like one. I’ve been trying to point out that the absolute/relative distinction is not really the issue at all. “Relativist” is just an epithet used to criticize people who don’t think that the purpose of inquiry in ethics is to unearth eternal truths. The label is misleading because such people do not generally think that nothing is better or worse than anything else, and if they did, we could dismiss their views based on their own standards.

We aren’t relativists. No one is. We just don’t think we need to try to identify what is best before we can talk about what is better. They think that the pursuit of “best” or the belief of some people that they already know “best” is an enemy to creating a world that is unimagineably better than what it is now.

“Best”,
Leela