Relativism and How to debunk it!

[hellas1]

Hi everyone!

This is a little something I discovered regarding how to debunk relativism, Enjoy! From www.carm.org

"Refuting relativism

Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. But, if we look further, we see that this proposition is not logical. In fact, it is self refuting.
All truth is relative

If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.
-There are no absolute truths
The statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false.

If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism.

-What is true for you is not true for me
If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?

If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false.
If you say yes, then relativism is false.
If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then
I am believing something other than relativism; namely, that relativism is false.
If that is true, then how can relativism be true?

If I am believing a premise that is true or false or neither?
If it is true for me that relativism is false, then relativism (within me) holds the position that relativism is false. This is self-contradictory.
If it is false for me that relativism is false, then relativism isn't true because what is true for me is not said to be true for me.
If you say it is neither true or false, then relativism isn't true since it states that all views are equally valid and by not being, at least true, relativism is shown to be wrong.
If I believe that relativism is false, and if it is true only for me that it is false, then you must admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing that relativism false.
If you admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing relativism is false, then relativism is defeated since you admit there is something absolutely true.
If I am believing in something other than relativism that is true, then there is something other than relativism that is true - even if it is only for me.
If there is something other than relativism that is true, then relativism is false.

-No one can know anything for sure
If that is true, then we can know that we cannot know anything for sure which is self defeating.
-That is your reality, not mine
Is my reality really real?
If my reality is different than yours, how can my reality contradict your reality? If yours and mine are equally real, how can two opposite realities that exclude each other really exist at the same time?

-We all perceive what we want
How do you know that statement is true?
If we all perceive what we want, then what are you wanting to perceive?
If you say you want to perceive truth, how do you know if you are not deceived?
Simply desiring truth is no proof you have it.
You may not use logic to refute relativism
Why not?
Can you give me a logical reason why logic cannot be used?
If you use relativism to refute logic, then on what basis is relativism (that nothing is absolutely true) able to refute logic which is based upon truth.
If you use relativism to refute logic, then relativism has lost its relative status since it is used to absolutely refute the truth of something else.

-We are only perceiving different aspects of the same reality.

If our perceptions are contradictory, can either perception be trusted?
Is truth self contradictory?
If it were, then it wouldn't be true because it would be self refuting. If something is self refuting, then it isn't true.
If it is true that we are perceiving different aspects of the same reality, then am I believing something that is false since I believe that your reality is not true? How then could they be the same reality?
If you are saying that it is merely my perception that is not true, then relativism is refuted.
If I am believing something that is false, then relativism is not true since it holds that all views are equally valid.
If my reality is that your reality is false, then both cannot be true. If both are not true, then one of us (or both) is in error.
If one or both of us is in error, then relativism is not true.

-Relativism itself is excluded from the critique that it is absolute and self-refuting.

On what basis do you simply exclude relativism from the critique of logic?
Is this an arbitrary act? If so, does it justify your position?
If it is not arbitrary, what criteria did you use to exclude it?
To exclude itself from the start is an admission of the logical problems inherent in its system of thought."

Bottom line: Relativism sucks.
hellas1

[Dunecat]

Well, there are two forms of relativism, that of a descriptive and normative sense. Not only does the latter not directly follow the former, there are good reasons to reject, and no good reasons to uphold it under scrutiny, that of the "Reformer's Dilemma", "Moral Progress Problem", "New Problem" Problem, and the fact that if no value or set of values can justifiably be recommended for all cultures and each culture's morality is correct for that culture, then how must one choose between from that which he partakes? It is arbitrary, silly, and self-contradicting.

I have not heard much of this "relativism of the individual" as it seems even more silly and philosophically useless, so I won't comment right now...

Of course, if individual relativism is true, it fosters a belief of egoism which is irrelevant and empirically false, but we'll deal with that when we come to it I suppose...

[kev-o]

Relativism and postmodernism are both epic fails.

If there is no absolute truth, then are relativism and postmodernism true?

EDIT: Atheists beware!!! The link is to christian apology. Beware!!!!!

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

Relativism and postmodernism are both epic fails.

The reasoning in the OP is whats an ep1c phail.

Heres a gem, did you ever think that Maybe if you yourself think that relativism has no value at all then maybe your actually a prime example of relativism ?

[kev-o]

Heres a gem, did you ever think that Maybe if you yourself think that relativism has no value at all then maybe your actually a prime example of relativism ?

You nee to clarify more of what you are saying here, cause I don't understand what you are talking about.

Have you ever considered that relative morals means no morals? Because if morals are relative according to the time period and social construct then it means morals change. Ergo morals do not exist, they are artificial, created by man to suite the time period / situation. A social construct created by man to govern man in order to create a civil society. Is truth relative? If it is then there is no truth. There is no relative answer to what 2+2 equals. The only answer you can get out of that is 4 and nothing else. That is a universal, absolute answer. There is an absolute right answer and that is truth, which as well is absolute. No one can claim what is absolute truth in everything, that would make them ignorant. Whether it be this religion or that or no religion. But that is what seperates the beliefs between groups. The religious folks believe there is an absolute truth and morality. Nonbelievers or skeptics claim everything is relative to the situation. Thus disagreements are sparked.

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

You nee to clarify more of what you are saying here, cause I don't understand what you are talking about.

Essentially, If it's your own opinion that relativism has no value, and that that is only a subjective truth, then your really proving the point of relativism.

Have you ever considered that relative morals means no morals? Because if morals are relative according to the time period and social construct then it means morals change. Ergo morals do not exist, they are artificial, created by man to suite the time period / situation. A social construct created by man to govern man in order to create a civil society.

Just because Morals change does not mean they don't exist. Morals do not mean 'right and wrong', they are merely peoples perceptions of right and wrong. To argue that moral's don't exist or that they are 'artificial' is to argue that Perception does not exist.

Is truth relative? If it is then there is no truth.

Not necessarily, all that means is that there are varying shades of Gray. You can always get a story half-right you know.

There is no relative answer to what 2+2 equals. The only answer you can get out of that is 4 and nothing else. That is a universal, absolute answer.

Numbers are perhaps a bad example to use. Something so dogmatic can not be related to something which is based on perception.

There is an absolute right answer and that is truth, which as well is absolute. No one can claim what is absolute truth in everything, that would make them ignorant. Whether it be this religion or that or no religion. But that is what seperates the beliefs between groups. The religious folks believe there is an absolute truth and morality. Nonbelievers or skeptics claim everything is relative to the situation. Thus disagreements are sparked.

There may be an absolute truth but......

A) How would you possibly determine it ? To prove something absolutely true you must look at every single factor in order to determine if it's truth or not.

B) How would you eliminate your own Bias in order to find that Absolute truth ?

Think of it like this, if someone were to ask you who is the greatest Leader in all history, there are a multitude of People you could choose. However, how could you objectively prove that ? Would it be How much they accomplished ? Thats subjective first of all, and second of all how are you going to work in the resources with which they had to work with ? Does Fredrick the Great get more credit then Napoleon because he only had Tiny Prussia to fight off all of Europe or does Napoleon get more credit then Frederick because he had all of France to dominate the rest of Europe ? Would it be their personal Traits or abilities ? Again, that's completely subjective.

Also, how would you get rid of your own personal, cultural or ethnic bias to get to your conclusion ? A westerner would have more knowledge of Western History and be more likely to choose from that field.

[hellas1]

@Last Roman,

You stated that "this doesn't tell us what's right or wrong."

Oh yes, the Selfish Standard of ethics DOES!

It's all about me, it's quite a utilitarian viewpoint isn't it?
hellas1

[Dayman]

EDIT: Atheists beware!!! The link is to a logical black hole. Beware!!!!!

Thanks for the warning!

[HopliteElite]

Moral relativism is just the acceptance of what sociology and anthropology seems to indicate about the existence of universal morals based upon empirical and scientifically tested evidence. One can say that there are universal morals but in order to prove that, one would have to go to every culture around the world and show that each culture shares at least one moral value, which nobody can seem to do, even when only focusing on a few different cultures.

The fact is, as anthropology proves, different cultures experience, often times, vastly different cultural norms. For instance, as long as some cultures consider incest and cannibalism morally normal, one cannot claim that there are universal morals, as in America and most other countries, these acts are some of the worst taboos you can engage in. One can not even claim that not murdering is a universal value we all hold because there are still cultures that engage in genocide, infanticide, etc...

The fact is, when I say that there are no universal moral truths, I base the statement off of what fields like anthropology and sociology prove through extensive study of various cultures. To say that there are or must be universal truths is a purely speculative stance, like saying there must be a God, even though there is no evidence to back it up. So until someone can show, through extensive research and application of the scientific method that there are universal morals, it is a speculative stance while relativism has evidence to back it up. So I can say that according to the evidence, there seem to be no univeral moral truths, without being contradictory because I am only following the evidence trail.

[kev-o]

Thanks for the warning!

I see what you did there!

[Denny Crane!]

What bothers me about this debate is that when people find flaws in relativism they automatically assume that objective morality must be true.

How absurd honestly.

If x is proved false then y must be true and not consider a, b or c.

Objective moral standards only hold true according to current times and beliefs, they are an emotional response and can't be adequately judged and there is nothing to judge them against. They are only initially easily argued and unconvincingly won.

[The Good]

I believe in absolute rights and wrongs. Have you noticed that most if not ALL cultures consider murder wrong? Stealing (well, the Spartans are an exception to this)? Sexual immorality, such as adultery? That just goes to show that there are absolute rights and wrongs.

[Last Roman]

I believe in absolute rights and wrongs. Have you noticed that most if not ALL cultures consider murder wrong? Stealing (well, the Spartans are an exception to this)? Sexual immorality, such as adultery? That just goes to show that there are absolute rights and wrongs.

no, it doesn't. Most western cultures consider those things wrong, not all cultures. Hell, even then, we try to find ways to justify what we would normally consider "wrong" and make it "right."

That the majority of SOME societies see these things as right (and what has been right or wrong has changed in those societies) doesn't make it absolute.

sorry, but most things in this world aren't black and white.

[Irishman]

I believe in absolute rights and wrongs. Have you noticed that most if not ALL cultures consider murder wrong? Stealing (well, the Spartans are an exception to this)? Sexual immorality, such as adultery? That just goes to show that there are absolute rights and wrongs.

These can easily be explained by social contracts and necessities.

These things are not absolutely right and wrongs, they are simply necessary for a well functioning society.

(Might I also point out that sexual immorality varies among cultures, and is nowhere near uniform)

[The Good]

(Might I also point out that sexual immorality varies among cultures, and is nowhere near uniform)

I don't know about that, adultery at the least, is considered highly immoral by many cultures.

[Irishman]

I don't know about that, adultery at the least, is considered highly immoral by many cultures.

Again though. Easily explainable with social contracts. A man HAS to know that his children were his as in most ancient societies, a child only carried the power and name of the man if it was a legitimate son.

Evolutionarily it makes sense too. Men must know they are passing on their genes, and not raising the child of another.

[KingOfTheIsles]

Have you noticed that most if not ALL cultures consider murder wrong?

That's because murder is wrong by definition. It is the act of unlawfully killing another human being. As it is intrinsically unlawful, it follows that it is unsurprising that all cultures consider murder wrong. What differs, however, are the laws that define murder.

[Denny Crane!]

I don't know about that, adultery at the least, is considered highly immoral by many cultures.

That's because murder is wrong by definition. It is the act of unlawfully killing another human being. As it is intrinsically unlawful, it follows that it is unsurprising that all cultures consider murder wrong. What differs, however, are the laws that define murder.

Murder is only wrong relatively speaking, it has been considered wrong now, wasn't always and as you say how do you define murder.

[chriscase]

This is a little something I discovered regarding how to debunk relativism, Enjoy!
...snip...
Bottom line: Relativism sucks.
hellas1

Hellas1,
I wish you would stand up against relativism in the threads where your Creationist colleagues use it as a last ditch defense against the theory of evolution.

The only academically supported form of relativism I am aware of is cultural relativism. When an anthropologist would go to study a culture totally untouched by the West, it was extremely difficult for that person to observe effectively unless s/he was willing to set aside moral judgements that were likely part of the observer's acculturation. I don't see how any of the arguments posed in the original post address this type of relativism.

[Irishman]

It is my view that 'morality' or rather the duty not to harm others (stemming from the social contract) is subjectively objective. It is objective in the fact that it sets down clear specifications for what are morally punishable actions (harming others) but realizes that what causes the harm is completely subjective according to cultures and persons.

Such a view (like Mill's Harm principle) allows for cultural relativism while incorporating standard social contract duties.

Of course none of these things are objective in the religious sense, and rely upon societies to make them 'wrong'.