Relativism today is quite widespread. It can be quite subtle, as well. Even common parlance has taken on such characteristics. When was the last time you found yourself adding disclaimers everywhere such as: “Well, that’s just my opinion.” Why is it taboo to make judgments? I’m not saying that we can always make accurate judgments in areas such as moral culpability. But, why are we afraid to judge practices objectively, to evaluate whether claims are true? The presumption must be that there is no objective reality or that we cannot have certain knowledge of objective reality and that this precludes judgment.

Arguing with someone who really believes in Relativism will fail.

Here’s why:

1. In order to argue, we must use language.
2. The use of language presumes that there is at least a consensus on the meaning of words.
1. Already, it could be argued that a true Relativist will not assume that we are using words to mean the same thing that he means when he uses them.
3. Functionally, the purpose of language is to inform others.
1. Look at it evolutionarily. The better-informed survive because accurate knowledge is superior to inaccurate knowledge (if it can even be called knowledge).
1. Learning from one’s own experience is good. Learning from many’s experiences is even better.
2. Thus, language is a tool for spreading accurate knowledge and increasing man’s total wealth of accurate knowledge.
2. Decisions that are made while considering the actual state of reality will be more beneficial than those made while considering a fictitious state of reality.
3. The very fact that human beings use language constantly is evidence that there is a fundamental acceptance in human nature of the existence of objective reality. It is also evident that human beings constantly operate under the assumption that they can really make judgements about reality.
1. However, this may be the same is-ought problem that is used to critique Relativism. Just because people operate this way doesn’t make it right or accurate.
1. However, the point is not that this is the best way to operate it is merely that a true Relativist would never presume to make consistent judgments about the state of reality. Thus, he must decline any practical use of language.
4. Keeping in mind that accurate knowledge is better than inaccurate “knowledge,” it is clear that if the purpose of language is to inform others accurately of the state of reality, then a Relativist has no use for language because he denies the very existence of an objective state of reality.
1. Not all Relativists will deny outright an objective state of reality. Moral Relativists, for instance, may consider denying the validity of universal moral claims while still respecting the validity of universal scientific claims, for instance.
1. However, if there is an objective state of reality, and if human beings exist in this state, and if morality is concerned with the outcome of actions at all, then it follows that in any given situation there is one best or several good courses of action because the outcome of actions depends upon the state of reality in which human beings exist.
1. Of course, Kant would reject the ethics of Consequentialism presented here. He, however, presents an even more binding ethics which makes bold universal claims.
2. Accurate knowledge may not be better than inaccurate knowledge. For example, it may be better for a robber who asks whether there is anyone else in the house and plans to kill those who are in the house not to have accurate knowledge about whether anyone else is in the house.
1. However, in cases like this, the larger picture must be taken into account. If the robber had had accurate knowledge his entire life, then he would not have taken up robbing in the first place because he would have realized that it was not the best course of action.
3. Consider Existentialism, Skepticism, or Nihilism. These may all question the presumptions about the purpose of language or its use as evidence of a fundamental anti-Relativism in human nature.
1. If words do not have objective referents, referents determined by consensus, or even at a minimum referents by fuzzy association, then we can never be sure what we are talking about except intrapersonally. Thus, there is really no point in having a conversation with anyone.
1. Anyone who makes a presumption that there is no objective reality or that we cannot judge it accurately in even a passable or barely useful way has no need of language.
1. That same person could insist on using language just because he wanted to without any real purpose. This position would fit in nicely with Nihilism.
1. In that case, why bother listening? There wouldn’t be a real point either way.
5. If a Relativist cannot use language for a real purpose (especially a purpose such as persuasion), then it is utterly pointless to argue with him.
1. A true Relativist would believe it impossible to persuade another human being to his side. Indeed, would he even want to?
1. A simpler and more cliche way of saying this is to point out that it is an objective claim to deny the validity of objective claims. Voila! Instant paradox.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 9th, 2006 at 9:00 PM and is filed under arguments, philosophy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.