One can frequently hear from devout Christians (and probably from devout Muslims etc.) that the main problem of the modern age is relativism in general and specifically ethical and religious relativism. True enough, one can frequently hear that it does not matter what you believe in, the only important thing is faith itself. "Faith in faith" - is the worldview of many. Moreover, defenders of various faiths frequently claim that science is not much better, as is it also contains elements of faiths, you cannot repeat all experiments bla bla. A third aspect is the shameless production of fake news and fake realties by unscupulous politicians, businessmen etc. The result is that many do not trust anything, while others shut their eyes and believe to one authority without even trying to check the validity of their statements. The result is profound confusion.
My opinion is still (in spite of arguments to the contrary related to an earlier question of ine) that value statements should be distinguished from explanatory or objective statements, which try to avoid values as much as possible. When an anthropologist or a researcher of comparative religion says that each culutre/value system/religion can be understood only in its own terms, it does not necessarily mean that tis scientist does not have values, religion, faith in certain things, only that he/she admits that much of these dear thought cannot be proved by objective or experimental methods. These are existential decisions where we devote ourselves to certain views/persons and try to live according to these decisions. It can be (and should be) very serious decision and endeavour - otherwise it meaningless. Faith is trust first of all, not reasoning. When we compare these views, we have to accept that others made other decisions (which similarly cannod be exactly proved). To mix up obejctivity and personal faith is a serious error, which in many cases leads to intelectual dishonesty, which is self-deception. We may even be convinced subjectively that our views can be (and shall be) proved exactly and objectively in a later state of the world or in eternity - but we have to accept that in the present state of the world it is not possible. Therefore we may tentatively accept that there are other, alternative world views which make the life manageable for other peoples or cultures, while we still maintain our own worldview for ourselves and offer it for others as a possible way of thinking.
In my view there is a much worse and insidious form of relativism, which is much more dangerous and destructive for all religions and ethical systems: it may be called incongruence. When we have a clear set of ethical and religious principles, which we consider universally valid and objective, nevertheless we do not stick to them in our practice when they may become incomfortable or useless from the political/state/group interest viewpoint. When we do ugly things we tend to explain it as "necessary because of the iniquity of our enemies", while we condemn it in the iives of our opponetns. I am firmly convinced that this second kind of "relativism" (dishonesty, hypocrisy) is much worse than the first one.
I would be glad to hear your opinions on this matter.
Greetings
What is relative in morality, religion, taste and beauty is the inability to agree on one opinion for all.
But this does not always mean that the religious text, moral value or aesthetic value is itself incapable of having an agreement of opinion, but because these values change with the change of civilization, culture and society ... but the moon is one and that the Romantics saw a different view of what the primitives consider ancient or scientists Space is newly ... Thanks... abbas ameir
I think you're right that the second form of relativism is worse than the first. But I maintain that a philosophical relativism is the worst form of all. Philosophically, I conceive of relativism as the notion that there are no objective moral values and duties, i.e., no moral values and duties that hold regardless of whether anyone believes in them or not. On relativism, all moral values and duties are dependent on human consciousness in general and sentiment in particular. However, it seems to me that we apprehend in moral experience that certain things are really good (e.g., love, generosity, equality, self-sacrifice) and certain things are really bad (e.g., rape, murder, discrimination, oppression) even if everyone on planet Earth believed otherwise. To illustrate, had the Nazis won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everyone who disagreed with them, everyone on planet Earth would believe that anti-Semitism and the Holocaust were good. But would these things really be good? No--humanity would simply be mistaken, just as mistaken as if everyone believed that 2 + 2 = 5.
Dear Kirk, thank you for your comment. I agree that (at least in principle) there is a "minimum common denominator" for various ethical systems followed in various cultures, sometimes even with tribal ethical systems. But these universal principles are rarely applied consequently. They are (or become) conditional. Sometimes VERY conditional. You shall not kill. Well, not your relatives at least, not your co-religionists, not your compatriots etc. Others - it is another question. You shall be supportive and amicable - but to whom? Under what conditions? My impression is that - especially if survival is at question - most communities find excuses even regard killing a sign of bravery. The universal principles immediately collapse. Sometimes much less is enough: when the question is not survival, simply well-being. Those people who stick to the notion of objective values and universals frequently become ruthless savages when they try to vindicate their case. It has been proven many times in history. We tend to forget that even if there are universal ethical/religious etc. principles, our knowledge and sagacity is very much limited. If one really believes in God, he/she should be somewhat reluctant to play God instead of Him. I think that your intention is quite good I just try list some of my doubts. Best regards Gyorgy
Relativism affirms that there are no propositional truths that can be applied without respect to context (time, place, personnel, culture, competing objectives, etc.). There may be guiding principles, but the onus is upon the actor to make decisions regarding how and even whether to apply these principles in a particular set of circumstances. Therefore, instead of proceeding from a posited ethic such as "abortion is always wrong," a relativistic approach might see abortion as a generally undesired end but that there might be circumstances where it is the "least bad" alternative.
Much more can be said here, of course, but this seems to be the core difference where relativism is concerned. Many confuse (or caricature) relativism as believing that relativists don't believe in "right or wrong" or "good or bad" or that relativists just "make up their own ethics as they go along." It would be more accurate to say that relativists don't believe that "one size fits all" when it comes to a specific principle or belief.
Tim Koch (MDiv, PhD, JD)
Dear Timothy, thank you for your note. Even in natural sciences (as shown pretty well by Thomas Kuhn in the frame of the paradigm model) there are conditions of answering a question. A question which was perfectly meaningful under certain conditions became meaningless in a later stage. When we hastily say that "because the quaestion has already been invalid before" we should consider that our knowledge is not absolute either, therfeore when we refer to our present reasoning to refute a question it may turn out to be false later. In the case of ethical questions the situatio is further complicated by the fact that even contemporary opinions may be diametrically opposite. Even when one believes in absolute maxims, there may be conditions under which its application may hurt even higher principles. So I beleive that the statement that ethical decisions can be conditional does not mean immorality. I also agree with your note on the caricature of relativism. Gyorgy
This question comes up from time to time. I think that "relativism" has become the new buzzword for the religiously devout, even when they don't know what it means.
Hey, we aren't performing human sacrifices to the gods anymore, are we? Or animal sacrifices either (one hopes!). We don't burn "witches" at the stake anymore, do we? Why is that? It is because as society evolves, as society gains in perspective, knowledge, and understanding, some fairy tales of the past are seen for what they are. Really, I'm being deliberately blunt to make the point. Things change, over time. O tempora, o mores. Cicero understood this much, and that was already thousands of years ago.
And the facile comeback, that science involves faith too, is not credible. Science involves verification. If something is merely hypothesized, it is stated as such. If something previously assumed verified is found to be flawed, equally it is questioned and disproven, and then back to the task of verifying and duplicating.
What's immoral is what is destructive to the human condition. So we create laws, and we continually update laws, as our understanding of destructive mechanisms keeps evolving. Anything that attempts to stifle such growth is just as harmful as are those corrupt politicians who are only after their own personal wealth or power.
The contradiction and lack of objectivity negates the logic of things
You can not prevent someone from following a certain behavior and at the same time you are following this behavior
In my opinion, the reason for the contradiction here is because of personal interest
This in itself leads to relativism in ethics and behavior even among the devouts
Interesting discussion. I'm not sure if it is a good idea to call hypocrisy (or what you call 'incongruence') a form of relativism. I'm not sure how we could go through life well with holding to universal principles all the time (we lie to avoid hurting feelings and make distinctions between killing in self-defence and murder). Further, do we need universal principles (how would they be justified?) to get along together? For example, while our prominant contemporary moral discourse is in terms of human rights, there seems little agreement on which rights are most important as well as how many human rights there are. We may have to just thrash things out together as we seem to have always done. I'm not even sure if relativism is as great a problem as we think it is. Religious or not, most of us are not psychopaths and when important issues in our lives arise, most of us, again, do not take a completely relativistic attitude (as we might in front of the stove or in the bar), we try to think things through (and this often involves a mixture of appeals---duties, consequences, perhaps religious or cultural norms, and so on). Think of how you might try to persuade someone to treat their wife/husband/child better, would you only consider abstract moral principles? This is messy but it seems to me the way things are.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Publishing