What is Relativism?

Conservative politicians hate it. So does the new Pope Benedict XVI, who has penned many a broadside against it. "Relativism" is used to invoke a mental image of a life of orgies, partying, drunkenness, drug abuse and sabbath-breaking. But what is it, really?

Shortly before he was elected pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger delivered a withering denunciation of relativism. For those unfamiliar with even the blunter points of philosophy, what was he driving at?

Moral relativism is the idea that moral principles have no objective standard, so states its dictionary definition.

In its extreme, the view that there are no hard and fast rules on what is right and wrong, on which values are set and should be fought for.

It is in contrast to absolutism, that there is one truth.

Read the rest of it at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4460673.stm

--p!

for certain what it is. It all depends. ;)

"a mental image of a life of orgies, partying, drunkenness, drug abuse and sabbath-breaking."

Paris Hilton is proof that the rich are doing just what the Pope is railing against. We see it every day on television. The super rich going from party to party, sex partner to sex partner. Seems to me the rich have brought down the morals of this country.

There was a great LTTE in the UK independent today.

"What opponents of "relativism" are really up against is the use of reason in moral and theological matters. They hate the democracy of discussion: that different views may be expressed on the important issues of the age and that axioms may be challenged. This is however a major part of Western tradition... {snip}

What we are now faced with is a kind of hyper-authoritarianism, which attempts to crush all rational discourse about morality and society... {snip}"

As I see it there is absolutism at one end of the spectrum and complete relativism at one end. The pope seems to be opposed to anything in between

Wish we had a paper like the independent....

If a democrat does it it's evil and should be condemned.
If a republican does it, it's okay, it's no big deal and why are you getting so tied up in knots?

People can (and will say anything) what they do is what counts.

that it means that people can decide what is right and wrong. Seeing as there is no absolute definition, we all should be able to make up our own minds. Religions hate this, cause they believe they tell the world what is right and wrong. How dare people think for themselves.

There is nothing wrong with it, in my opinion. I odn't believe morality is necessarily always fixed in place. It should change with the times, with some exceptions. Anything else is simply to rigid to be feasible.

"Relativism is the view that the meaning and value of human beliefs and behaviors have no absolute reference. Relativists claim that humans understand and evaluate beliefs and behaviors only in terms of, for example, their historical and cultural context. Philosophers identify many different kinds of relativism depending upon which classes of beliefs allegedly depend upon what."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

It's all those shades of grey that drive conservatives nuts- when what is good for me in the context of my life isn't, isn't good for you.

No absolute right and wrong? Oh the horror!

It's self-defeating, because in this definition it claims no absolutism while demanding absolute historicity, which is still realism. It's absolutism lies in the realm of human activity, not in the absolutism of covering laws or a Divine creator (a vulgar presentation of an elaborate argument I recently read by Malcolm Ashmore "The Reflexive Thesis"). We are the dreamers of dreams, at least that's what Willy Wonka teaches the children. So that must mean we write the books as well. Just because it's social does not diminish the claims to being absolutely real.

Conservative's use this contradictory definition as a weapon. They use it to undermine the legitimacy of scientific findings (Bush claiming the jury's still out on whatever initiative he doesn't agree with, because out there somewhere some dissident scientist has claimed something remotely in his favor), as a rhetorical strategy to undermine moral arguments originating in secular circles (the equal playing fields for all perspectives nonsense in the media), and to place themselves and their mystical absolutism, above all else, on either equal footing (with science) or on a pedestal (against all other religions). (my observation but one that I'm positive I've heard or read about elsewhere, just don't know where) On edit again: apparently on DU because we all seem to agree.

It seems our (if we like, the progressive) absolute criteria for basing judgment is on principles of self-determination. If your documents violate the self-determination of others then they are deemed invalid. Our libertarianism is separate from the pseudo-libertarianism because we recognize that these violations also occur in the non-existent "free-market". The onus is on the violator to recognize the err of his/her ways and come to see how their beliefs and their wishes to determine the rights of others is wrong. This is the premise of the civil rights movement anyway. All actions that violate personal space, such as in property rights, violence laws, freedom of speech, etc. should be judged with contempt. Speech acts that violate this premise should be met with correctives from the community so that the boundaries of its moral code can be restored. If my acts of free speech are an attack on some other social organization, then I would hope someone told me to fall back in line. Everyone can make mistakes on this regard, but they shouldn't go unchallenged. Radical relativism would have no rules. And so the community must tolerate any action, even those that violate sacred principles of self-determination. To the contrary, absolute relativity has as its basic premise something that allows reflection and challenge; it opens up debate. It always values diversity and respects it. The moral underpinnings of the civil rights movement, as a continuation of the American Revolution, was born in conflicts between people's experiencing their own position as absolutely true and not something absolutely negotiated, and so this movement works to find its own solution. That's why relativity is aligned with principles of reason. But this is not so for this more popular definition of relativism from Wikipedia.

Edit: of course I can't spell

Relativism is a made-up concept. Even those who rail against it are 100% incapable of conducting their lives in an arelative way.

Simple example: Thou shalt not kill! Fundies claim it should read Thou Shalt Not Murder! What's the difference? The difference is the relative circumstances involved in the killing.

Executing a prisoner is not murder (they say). Abortion is! Beating one's wife to death is murder. War is not! The end result is the same, right? The only difference is the circumstances that precipitated the act.

Those circumstances constitute a relative point of view that justify or condemn an action. Hence, no act, or any damage to anyone at anytime, can be inherently right or wrong, unless the relative circumstances dictate the "rightness" or "wrongness".

Hence, there is no such thing as moral or ethical relativism. Without the changes in relative circumstances, there would be no need for ethics at all. The intrinsic evil in an act would be absolute and it would never be committed.

So, what it really is is a made up term, used by shallow thinking folks, usually conservative, that allows them to condemn others for not sharing their black & white approach to things, even though they can't avoid relative decisions themselves.

It's a complete fallacy.
The Professor

Nail on the head.

This is one term that has long stuck in my throat. Situational ethics, a related piece of nonsense, is also a problem for me. If there's no situation to be weighed, there is no need for an ethical decision. Hence, one cannot have asituational ethics.

Another piece of stupidity.
The Professor

to cherry-pick Bible verses when they decide gays go to hell but hetero philanderers don't.

It gives them the right to say the only way to heaven is to acknowledge Christ as savior. True, Jesus saved everybody. But since Gandhi didn't accept Jesus as his personal savior, he's hosed.

It's a special term that makes Abu Ghraib OK because the torturers were doing it for Jesus.

It's okay to say abortion is evil because a fetus is innocent while capital punishment is okay because then you are eliminating the guilty.

The President recently made this argument.

The biggest problem that I have with these comments against Relativism is that the speaker is almost always the leader or an official of an organisation claiming to be the "one truth and morality". They are in effect simply telling the listener to obey them.
- Richard Read, London, UK

A couple of days ago, I had a debate on these boards about Israeli/Palestinian issues with a committed zionist:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3505388&mesg_id=3507741&page=

He tried to justify Israeli claims to the West Bank in terms of the bible saying God gave this land to the Jews.

I countered that Muslims believe God gave them the land because Mohammed ascended to heaven from Jerusalem.

And Christians claim the land because Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Each claim is a claim of absolute truth. The Catholic church makes claims of absolute truth.

The problem is that if you are not a Catholic, their claims of absolute truth fall on deaf ears. Similarly, you cannot as a Muslim, argue for the West Bank based on Islam, because Jews and Christians do not share your absolute truth and vice versa.

Therefore, we need some middle language to get along. We say, each of our claims is rooted in our own tradition, and it not convincing to the other side.

Relativism means treating your absolute truth and my absolute truth as relative -- meaningful only relative to their own traditions.

Essentially, relativism means tolerance -- something Ratzinger is opposed to. Relativism is when a Catholic says to a Muslim, your claims are as valid within (or relative to) your tradition, as my claims are within my tradition.

From a LTTE that was published in the NYTimes this morning (note it is not my letter)

To the Editor:

So the new pope thinks that the Western world is afflicted by relativism. When conservatives object to certain moral views, the fashion these days is to call those views relativist. But that is a misnomer.

Moral relativism is the idea that the truth of moral views is relative to what a particular person or group thinks is right. If one group thinks that something is right and another thinks it is wrong, it is right for the first group and wrong for the second.

Those who hold "liberal" views are not relativists. They simply disagree with the conservatives about what is right and wrong.

There is nothing new about moral disagreement. It is part of moral thought and can lead to progress. Nothing is gained by obscuring the disagreement with rhetorical labels.

Bruce M. Landesman
Salt Lake City, April 19, 2005
The writer is a philosophy professor at the University of Utah.

Latin 'ratio' = relation.

a hooker to be in your White House press corps for years while the hooker is still offering his sexual services at $200 an hour, it's okay. In fact, it is an "invasion of privacy" to pursue that matter at all.

So, you see, "good" and "bad" are relative terms. They are related to whether or not you are a member of the Republican party.

And that is Relativism in a nutshell.

the belief that there is no right or wrong in any core moral belief.

The opposite is what the Catholic Church teaches : That there is an absolute correct true answer to EVERY moral question or issue.

Ex : Slavery is morally wrong, even if it is legal no matter what. Easy point, but in every generation there is this grey area where a society is not sure what is the correct moral answer.

But there IS a correct moral answer to every issue!!! We are sometimes not sure and cannot agree what that is though.

First, you say "But there IS a correct moral answer to every issue!!!" That can't be true, because of the scope of "moral" issues.

Let me give you a trivial example in which relativism surely gives the correct answer. Is it "moral" to eat pork? If you are a Muslim, it is immoral, because God has commanded you not to eat of this filthy animal; and if you are a Jew, the moral element is elevated because your agreement not to eat pork is also based on your people's covenant with God.

For American Christians, whether to eat pork is a morally trivial issue. The only reason not to is if you believe, say, in animal rights or vegetarianism.

There are many questions that are moral questions that are hotly debated that truly have relativist answers.

Should a seventeen year old have pre-marital sex with her boyfriend? For a Christian fundamentalist the answer is a resounding no. An east coast liberal urban Mom, however, might give her daughter condoms to make sure she has safe sex.

There is no single correct moral answer.

And yet, it would be wrong to say that that Mom, a relativist, has no core values. Her values are "protecting my daughter realistically is more important that obeying some code created by some baptist pastor, who himself may be cheating on his wife."