Relativism

Relativism is the philosophical theory that all morals in the world are subject to circumstance. What may be morally ‘wrong’ for one person in a particular culture is completely morally ‘right’ in another. For example, there have been many traditions practiced in cultures throughout the past that nowadays in western culture would be intolerable to allow happen. Foot-binding for example was a long standing tradition in china. Western people now look on it as a sick practice, but looked at from a relativist point of view: The Chinese people for 1000 years viewed it as an acceptable-even encouraged-practice since they believed it was right it was. However this must be applied to ALL aspects of life. Relativists cannot pick and choose what they want to be right and what is wrong.

Cons:

A common criticism of Relativism is that it inherently contradicts itself. Stating that “all is relative” is itself an absolute statement. If it is an absolute statement then ‘all is relative’ is not in fact true. However, this argument against relativism only applies to relativism that positions truth as relative

A different criticism of Relativism is the belief there ARE absolute moral truths. This would be the belief that all people are born with an instinctive knowledge of what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in the world.

Relativism denies that harming others is wrong in any absolute sense. The majority of relativists, of course, consider it immoral to harm others, but relativist theory allows for the opposite belief. In short, if an individual can believe it wrong to harm others, he can also believe it right–no matter what the circumstances.

Responses to Cons:

Contradictions such as "all beliefs are equally worthless" are nonsensical, as they constitute arguing from the premise. Once you have said if the X is absolute (e.g. "all beliefs are equally worthless") you have presupposed relativism is false. And you cannot prove a statement using that statement as a premise.

A very different approach explicates the rhetorical production of supposedly 'bottom-line' arguments against relativism. Part of the rhetoric discussed here involves the portrayal of relativists who say (for example), "torture is not an absolute evil", as saying, in effect, "we don't disapprove of torture as strongly as you do". Relativists argue that this is a rhetorical trick denying absolute truths still leaves relativists free to be utterly and passionately opposed to torture.

Personal Opinion:To me relativism makes lots of sense as a way of viewing the world. It does not state that any

particular set of beliefs is of any more value than another. It is in effect the belief that morals are socially constructed. Anything can be made to seem right depending on the culture it comes from. Relativism allows for this in a way that –to me-is a good judgment.