3

Is my rationale correct here?:

If relativism is relative, relativism is a contradiction in itself, because you’re forced to believe what other people think is morally correct, is correct for them, and since it’s possible that someone (let’s call them person A) can be led to believe that objectivism is always the case in morality, then relativists are forced to believe that objectivism is the case for person A, but if moral objectivism is true for person A, then absolute relativism isn't. In other words, relativism is impossible if there’s someone who believes morality is objective, because if they do, it is correct according to relativists, but if objectivism is correct, then absolute relativism is not.

And if relativism is not relative, and it’s the only objective thing in morality, that means relativism isn’t the case because there would exist something that’s objectively moral: relativism. You can’t force relativism onto everyone, because if you do, you make relativism objective, and if it’s objective, it’s not relative.

Therefore, absolute relativism is impossible and there must be at least one objective moral truth

2
  • If there is objective truth in morality then relativism is more psychological than important in the field of Philosophy. Those people who believe in relativism typically don't understand deductive reasoning terminology & are confused. Propositions about reality do NOT depend on what people FEEL, WITH WHAT THEY AGREE WITH, WHAT THEY IDENTIFY WITH, etc. A proposition that is meaningful in reality must be either true or false with no wiggle room. For instance, either abortion is immoral or it is moral. There is no third option. Reasoning must show WHY, not feelings or beliefs. – Logikal Feb 3 at 7:02
  • 5
    No. I think your argument mixes epistemic relativism (about truth/knowledge) with moral relativism (about values). Absolute epistemic relativism is self-contradictory because its claim that everything is relative is negated when applied to itself. But the claim that all values are relative is not self-contradictory in this way. That someone believes that morality is objective does not force moral relativists to agree, as long as they are not also epistemic relativists. They can claim that, speaking objectively, such a person is mistaken, and, in fact, all morality is relative. – Conifold Feb 3 at 7:41
0

Not quite. Person A might believe that Objectivism is true and always the case but a believer in Moral Relativism would believe that each persons view of morality is true FOR THEM ONLY. As an objective morality has to be universally true, it cannot be simultaneously true for both the relativist and the objectivist. Therefore, under the worldview of relativism, objectivism CANNOT be universally true but it can be personally true for individual objectivists meaning that it is, in fact, relativism in disguise.

I THINK that your second point is also flawed, though I may be mistaken and am open to correction. Here is my reasoning:

An objective fact is one that exists, and is true, independent of the the people who believe it. A relative fact which is imposed on a population may become universally accepted but it will not be objective simply because everyone believes it to be true. Everyone may be mistaken.

If you force relativism onto everyone it does not become objective, it simply becomes universal. For Relativism to become objective it would have to be true and accurate, even in the absence of any Relativists.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.