Liberalism and relativism make necessary bedfellows
Elsewhere on this page the frontiers of liberalism are explored, so this post will delve into its heartland. I take relativism to be one of the principles of liberalism, although it is not very often mentioned explicitly. Relativism is a controversial approach to ethics, as it questions the existence of a universal set of ethical rules. Briefly, it means that if person A holds one ethical opinion, and person B another, it is impossible to determine which opinion is correct, as both persons have an equal right to be correct. Relativism claims, therefore, that it is all-right to hold a certain opinion, but it is wrong to condemn anyone for having another opinion. It is the direct opposite of bigotry.
While this sounds appealing, it is only too easy to come up with lots of examples that most people will find very hard to accept as ethically correct—just think of any atrocity wherein the perpetrator was convinced he was in the right. Some thinkers believe that therefore relativism is not a satisfactory ethical theory: it fails to condemn some acts that surely must be wrong. These judgements, however, are often made from a certain point of view, often one that does not itself contain the norms of the society or individual whose act(s) must be wrong. The testing of an ethical theory by means of certain acts that must be wrong, implies determining beforehand which acts must be wrong: before testing relativism as an ethical theory, some other ethical theory (or just instinct) determined the required outcomes for relativism to pass the test. This hardly seems fair. Besides this, there are countless examples also of individuals who turned out to be right, even though they were reviled by their environment.
(In order not to clutter this page with philosophical ramblings, this post will continue as comment on itself.)
While this sounds appealing, it is only too easy to come up with lots of examples that most people will find very hard to accept as ethically correct—just think of any atrocity wherein the perpetrator was convinced he was in the right. Some thinkers believe that therefore relativism is not a satisfactory ethical theory: it fails to condemn some acts that surely must be wrong. These judgements, however, are often made from a certain point of view, often one that does not itself contain the norms of the society or individual whose act(s) must be wrong. The testing of an ethical theory by means of certain acts that must be wrong, implies determining beforehand which acts must be wrong: before testing relativism as an ethical theory, some other ethical theory (or just instinct) determined the required outcomes for relativism to pass the test. This hardly seems fair. Besides this, there are countless examples also of individuals who turned out to be right, even though they were reviled by their environment.
(In order not to clutter this page with philosophical ramblings, this post will continue as comment on itself.)
posted by Jack at 8:55 am
2 Comments:
Another popular argument against it is based on logic. Logic, in philosophical circles, can't be wrong. An argument based on logic is irrefutable, and settles the matter for all, eternally. The argument goes as follows. Two men are in a room, one of them says 'It's raining outside', the other says, 'It's not raining outside': it can't rain and not rain at the same time, therefore, one of the men is wrong. This argument seems to hold water, until we consider exactly what these men need to do in order to resolve their dispute, which is look out of the window. There are, I need not remind the reader, no ethical windows to look through in order to see ethical clouds or ethical sunshine. Ethical differences cannot be resolved by looking at ethical facts, just like ethical theories cannot be discarded by witless stories. (In fact, this argument is so silly that I would not have mentioned it, were it not for the gleeful smile my ethics professor had when she thought she had, for all and eternally, ended the matter with it.)
As I wrote in a previous comment, I do hold some strong views on ethics myself; how can I reconcile this with my relativism? Well, quite simply, because the fact that I hold these views does not prove I am right: I am equal to other humans, who will not share my norms, and I will not award some exemption from relativism to my own norms. While I believe in some norms strongly enough to live by them myself, I am not arrogant enough to believe everyone else should live by them as well. (Even if I believe it would be better if they did.) This does not mean that I discard the notion of universal ethical values; it's just that, since we all have an equal chance of finding them out (if indeed they do exist), and there is no proof of right or wrong in these matters, there is no point in claiming one is correct or another is false. Perhaps this attitude can be well described as methodological relativism, or relativism for the sake of argument—or relativism for lack of ethical proof.
Because someone might limit the freedom of another, and not raise the relativist's eyebrows if only that someone is convinced he is ethically in the right, relativism cannot be equated with liberalism. But it does embody some important aspects of liberalism. The equality of men, for instance: your guess is as good as mine. It expresses trust in the capability of men to make their own choices for the better, and a belief that no-one but the individual himself knows what is best for him. Especially this last aspect is sorely lacking in some ideologies that claim to know exactly what's best for everyone, and will put aside whoever doesn't agree as having a 'false consciousness'. Relativism, when strengthened by one rule, forms the perfect antidote to this know-it-all meddling. This rule is that, one may do as one likes, so long one gives up the desire to interfere with the lives of others. And, while this is hardly a fully-rounded political theory, it does signify liberal attitude to fellow men.
I don’t believe children can be expected to make up their own minds from the day they are born (and I can’t remember saying so anywhere). But this is an interesting topic, because the decisions the parents make when responsible have a large impact on the child’s life—even after s/he has become (legally) independent. Perhaps we can pursue this in a new post?
Relativism, however, deals with how one can judge different norms across, for instance, different cultures or groups. My post about Ms Verdonk and the Imam is an example of relativism: I take the relativist position and Ms Verdonk the absolutist (one should shake hands! no matter what!).
Post a Comment
<< Home