If someone called you a relativist would feel complimented or insulted?

CharlasPhilosophy and Theory

Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.

If someone called you a relativist would feel complimented or insulted?

Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.

1triviadude
Jun 28, 2009, 6:07 pm

Not that I actually would consider myself a relativist. But it seems like the people who are least dogmatic, more interested in a spirit of inquiry, typically attain this label through no effort of their own. Put me down in the complimented camp.

2jimroberts
Jun 28, 2009, 6:14 pm

It seems to me that those accused of relativism are those who seek to base morality in the observable effects of actions. What else can make sense? So yes, to be accused of relativism a compliment.

3KevinCK
Jul 9, 2009, 2:29 pm

People do call me a relativist because I am one. I take no offense, even though those who call me thus want me to take offense.

I calmly try and explain my position - very much influenced by Mackie's Error Theory.

And jmroberts is correct: generally those who call someone a relativist pejoratively are those who hold to (the natural opposite or relativism) absolutist morality, which has always seemed an untenable position.

4jahn
Editado: Jul 13, 2009, 10:26 am

Someone asks: is it OK to wear the label “relativist”? And one fellow, being of a relativistic attitude himself, answers: Oh, absolutely so! But another relativist, slightly less absolutist, answers: Hey that depends on what branch of relativism you’re into!

But, as I see it, either relativism proves itself valuable in procuring alleviation of needs through the functionality of its structure, or else the relevance of it is external, as for example in gathering a wished for acceptance into the Correct Thinking Gentlemen’s Club. And then the question is not whether relativism itself is valuable, but whether the letters stringed in a sequence spelling relativism is the right ticket. And the half yes, the full yes, and an eventual no are all perfectly correct answers for each entrance giving entrance according to such demands. That is: it is all relative; it depends on who you are talking to! Two answers are given; I think I will withhold mine awaiting further consideration.

There is always a bit of moral absolutism in moral relativism, isn’t there? As I can’t see the acceptation of alternative values as all being respectable serving any functions other than to alleviate the demand for absolute obedience?
Does the problem lie with the carburettor or the distributor? Should we build a bridge or a ferry? Such questions are inherently different from: Am I allowed to sometimes lie? As the relevance of the latest question lies only within demanded absolute honesty, without it, it is seems bosh, and it must remain so under the consideration of whether in some circumstances one should be allowed to lie or not.

Or else I have completely misunderstood what relativism is all about… Just thought I’d try a few questions.

5KevinCK
Jul 13, 2009, 11:10 am

Why are we all of a sudden talking about the "usefulness" of relativism? Are we all pragmatists now?

I am not talking about the "usefulness" of relativism and in being a moral relativist, I am not considering whether such a view is useful, but whether such a view constitutes an adequate description of our moral landscape and moral psychology. My relativism is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Is there absolutism in relativism? Only if you see statements that all is relative as an absolute statement. I don't. I believe and think that all morals are relative to the individual or social network. I did not say that they are, but that I have every reason to believe that they are. Is this absolutist of me?

And your question about answering "am I allowed to sometimes lie?" presupposing a truthful answer misses the fact that your question qualifies with "sometimes"!! Therefore, there really is no contradiction there. I can hold that I am allowed to sometimes lie, and that my answer is absolutely truthful without any contradiction whatever.

As for why I am a relativist, I think it quite obvious that the fact of such pervasive moral diagreement throughout the world is best accounted for by the idea that, per Mackie, morals are not "things" but thoughts and, more generally, preferences. The fact that the world disagress on the proper critieria for going to war shows me that there probably are no such "objective" critiera.

6jahn
Jul 13, 2009, 2:59 pm

#5
That a clear divergence between absolutism and relativism exists I did not mean to contest. I find your description of relativism a good one, and from my point of view a (relatively) commendable attitude. I wanted to say that morals are still morals, and observable dancing in the spotlight on this page, as compliments and insults and accusations and offense-taking and even things being deemed quite correct - which I wanted to suggest could be a lamentable fact.

It may not have been noticeable but I started from the question asked as an introductory line to this thread: “If someone called you a relativist would feel complimented or insulted?” Which I might characterize as a moral one, comparable to: “Would you call me immoral if I flattered an old lady with lies?” I contrasted such a question with questions that could be answered with analysis of inherent relevance, trying to point out that the relevance of the “lie or not” question lies outside the inherent logic that might exist in it.

You might consider the possibility of a man visiting a country where is spoken a language unknown to him, and having learned a few sounds he believes represents words that would make him welcome to the people roars these out to a crowd. If pelted with stones as an answer he would change his sounds, but not their meaning to him. This sort of external relevance I believe exists in any question of ideas’ acceptability, and it exists even when several alternatives are deemed acceptable. And in that I find moral relativism adhering to moral absolutism – there must be a generative need!

But your relativism as you say is purely descriptive, not at all prescriptive? Yes, I have a bit of difficulty with that: the disinterested observer, unaffected by disapprobation of his disinfected positivism, but still somehow willing to calmly explain his position.
Well I won’t claim that for me, there is no philosophical halo on this old cynical head! I am certain that in my mind there does not appear a single idea outside its felt need. I am all for striving to leave the demons of my past in forgetfulness, to be calm and clear and considerate (well… I liked the alliteration), but I’m sure nothing strung into sentences by me is purely descriptive, or even wholly seriously meant.

7KevinCK
Jul 13, 2009, 3:31 pm

Yes, my relativism is purely descriptive. In fact, if I had my druthers, there would be moral right answers knowable as such. It would make life easier for everyone and conflict so easily avoided. We'd just look in the authorized moral dictionary when we had any disagreements over moral definitions (much like looking in Websters to find the "true" etymological definitions.)

My relatavism actually might best be comapred to Russell in Human Society in Ethics and Politics. Most of Russell's stated reasons for moral relativism, like my own, are descriptive: relativism makes more sense when witnessing the seemingly intractable moral disagreemnts that abound in the world.

And I try as hard as I can to hold my position non-absolutely. Like the question of proving a god that seems resistant to all detection, I could be wrong on the morality issue: maybe morals are real things in the world and we've not been able to detect them so far.

But until then - like with the God question - I am going to assume the negative until someone proves the positive.

8reading_fox
Jul 14, 2009, 6:58 am

Neither. I don't find it an admirable trait that one should be feel pleased to be recognised as such - but yet it;'s not something that one should be ashamed or insulted by either.

There are problems with relativism, that absolute moralists don't encounter. Neither is a perfect solution - but then we live in an imperfect world.