Q: Is the argument for the truth of truth-relativism valid? If so, why so? If not, why not?

Question

I need help understanding how the argument for the truth of truth-relativism is valid.

I have attempted to explain how the argument for relativism is valid, and I think I am on the right track, but I need help completing my proposed solution and understanding it more fully.

Question: Is the Argument for the Truth of Relativism Deductively Valid in Form?

Argument R (for the truth of relativism):

• P1. Positive Thesis = A claim is only evaluable with respect to a
  point of view
• P2. Negative Thesis = There are no absolute truths
• P3. Relativism = Positive Thesis & Negative Thesis
• P4. Relativism is true if and only if both its positive and negative theses are true
• Conclusion. Relativism is true.

Is the argument for the truth of relativism valid?

• If so, how so?
• Explain! If not, why not?

What I have figured out thus far...

Relativism is self defeating: because its constituent elements: its positive and negative theses are in direct conflict with one another, which yield a contradiction, which is a necessary falsity. Therefore, relativism is contradictory on its own terms and is not logically sound though it is logically valid.

A deductively valid argument is such for which true premises would necessarily lead to a true conclusion; that is, for which it is impossible for the premises to (all) be true, yet the conclusion false.So, we can devise a validity test: assume the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false and observe whether a contradiction arises. If a contradiction does arise, then the argument is valid, because a valid argument is one in which it is impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion false.

Relativism:= Positive thesis + Negative thesis

If we grant both the premises true, then relativism is true. Relativism is true if and only if both the negative and positive these are true. However, granting them both true yields a contradiction, which is a necessary falsity that cannot possibly be true. To make the conclusion false is to say that relativism is false.

A contradiction arises out of jointly affirming the positive and negative theses (taking them both to be true). If there are no absolute truths, then it cannot be stated that claims are only evaluable with respect to point of view. And if claims are only to be evaluated with respect to a point of view, then in whose point of view does one claim that "there are no absolute truths”. By leaving out the point of view, a claim becomes unevaluable (since the qualifier in whose case a claim may be evaluable is not supplied).

No contradiction arises from granting the premises true and making the conclusion false.

A contradiction arises: namely, that one both arises (as a result of granting the premises true) and does not arise (as a result of setting the conclusion to be false). This latter contradiction resulting from applying the validity test, namely that a contradiction both arises and does not arise, is the indicator that this argument is valid.

Question: How can you complete my proof that the argument for the truth of relativism is valid but not sound?

Is my proposed solution sufficient to explain why the argument for relativism is valid?

I need help understanding my proposed solution better.

Please comment on what I have got right and what wrong in my proposed solution.

I need help completing my proof that relativism is valid but not sound and I need help understanding why this is so. Are my explanations sufficient? What is missing?

Answer 1

"If there are no absolute truths, then it cannot be stated that claims are only evaluable with respect to point of view. And if claims are only to be evaluated with respect to a point of view, then in whose point of view does one claim that "there are no absolute truths”."

You can simplify your arguments by defining Relativism to be the statement:

• P1. It is absolutely true that there are no absolute truths.

The contradiction is obvious then.

Relativists, however, would reply that it is the wrong definition. They would only say:

• P1. It is relatively true that there are no absolute truths.

In a relativist viewpoint, there are no absolute truths. In an absolutist viewpoint, there are. Absolutists each believe that their own beliefs are the one-and-only truth. They can't all be right. At most, one of them can be right, and the distinction is whether you take the number to be one (i.e. mine!!) or zero.

---

I think there is a problem with the whole approach in that it looks like a strawman argument. You offer an "Argument for the Truth of Relativism" and then knock it down. But I've never previously seen a Relativist use precisely that argument in support of their beliefs, and it's certainly not the only one they could use.

Personally, I think the problem with Relativism is confusing the meanings of 'belief' and 'truth'. Our beliefs are what we believe to be true, and so we often call them 'truths'. Beliefs can differ. Truths can't.