Standards and Obstacles to Critical Thinking PART 3 Obstacle to Critical Thinking: Relativism
Relativism is a theory about the nature of truth. This theory holds that…
There is no such thing as “objective” truth, only opinions which differ from person to person or society to society.
No opinion is objectively superior to, or inferior to, any other opinion.
All opinions are equally “true” relative to the speaker.
Relativism is a serious Obstacle to Critical Thinking and should be avoided. Relativism vs. Relativity
Clearly, there are appropriate and rational grounds for employing the concept of relativity in the pursuit of truth.
EXAMPLE: Whether an object is to one’s left or right is relative to ones position.
EXAMPLE: Whether a person is “tall” or “short” is relative to the comparison group. For example, a person who is 5’11” may appear tall in one country (e.g. Sri Lanka), but somewhat average in another (e.g. Slovenia).
EXAMPLE: We can often better understand and empathize with others when we grasp and respect the importance of contingent perspectives. Global Relativism
Global relativism is the view that the truth of all claims (even descriptive and conceptual claims) are relative. This view is vulnerable to the charge of self-referential inconsistency.
Suppose one were to believe that “all claims are relative.”
But if this is so, then the claim that “all claims are relative,” is itself relative.
Thus, one cannot consistently assert this claim is true, without also acknowledging that it is not true in any objective sense. Values Relativism
Though some thinkers have embraced the notion of global relativism, the most commonly held views of relativism pertain to values:
Aesthetic Relativism: Aesthetics is the discipline that considers issues of beauty and artistic taste. This view is sometimes expressed by the idiom, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
Moral Relativism: Ethics is the discipline that considers issues of morality and what constitutes right or wrong behavior. This view is sometimes expressed by the idioms, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” or “What’s morally true for you may not be what’s morally true for me.” Moral Relativism
There are two primary forms of Moral Relativism:
Subjectivism (Subjective Relativism): This view asserts that moral claims are only “true” or “false” relative to a subject (or speaker).
Moral beliefs under this view are analogous to differences in taste or preference.
Under this view, one and the same claim may be “true” for one person and “false” for another.
Cultural Relativism (Conventional Relativism): This view asserts that moral claims are only “true” or “false” relative to a particular culture (or society). The Case for Moral Relativism
The Argument Against Objective Ethics:
1. If there were any such thing as objective truth in ethics, we should be able to prove that some moral opinions are true and others are false.
2. But in fact we cannot prove which moral opinions are true and which are false.
3. Therefore, there is no such thing as objective truth in ethics.
(Note: This argument represents a barrier to critical thinking) No Proof in Ethics or Morality?
Some Options in response to the Argument Against Objective Ethics:
1. There are moral facts, in the same way that there are facts about the stars and planets. (Probably not a viable positon, as qualities of “right” and “wrong” are not empirically observable.)
2. Our values are nothing more than the expression of our subjective feelings. (This the Moral Subjectivist position.)
3. Moral truths are truths of reason; that is, a moral judgment is true if it is backed by better (i.e. relevant and accurate) reasons than the alternatives. (this is how a Critical Thinker addresses moral issues.) Is there no way to distinguish between better and worse moral beliefs?
Suppose Mary, Arthur, and Beatrice each believe the following claim: “It is wrong to steal candy.” Now consider their reasons (the claim following “because”) in support of this claim.
Mary: Stealing candy is wrong because every time we steal, a child in Australia goes blind.
Arthur: Stealing candy is wrong because oysters live in salt water.
Beatrice: Stealing candy is wrong because stealing harms the owner of the 7-11 franchise and this causes the owner to raise prices for all customers.
Do Mary, Arthur, and Beatrice have equally good reasons to believe that it is wrong to steal candy? Standards for evaluating Moral claims:
In the previous example, Mary, Arthur and Beatrice each gave a reason for why they believe stealing candy is wrong. Mary’s reason was clearly relevant, although it was inaccurate.
If her claim was true, that would certainly provide powerful support for the belief that stealing candy is wrong, as it would greatly harm peoples’ interests.
However, her claim is clearly untrue, as otherwise, we’d expect the entire population of Australian children to be blind (which it is not). Arthur's reason was clearly true, although it was entirely irrelevant.
Even though we can confirm that oysters live in saltwater, this makes no difference whatsoever as to whether stealing candy is either right or wrong. Beatrice’s reasons are both relevant and accurate, making her believe that stealing candy is wrong a reasonable belief. Moral Subjectivism
Subjectivism denies that moral claims are objectively “true” or “false.” Instead, they translate moral claims into statements of personal approval or disapproval.
When a person says this: What they really mean is this:
“X is morally acceptable” “X is right or good” “I (speaker) approve of X” “X ought to be done”
“X is morally unacceptable” “X is wrong or bad” “I (speaker) disapprove of X “X ought not to be done” Problems with Moral Subjectivism
1. If subjectivism is correct, then changing your moral beliefs could never be rationally justified. After all, no reason could make a moral belief better or more true than another.
2. Nearly everyone has, at some time, changed their belief on some moral matter for some identifiable reason.
3. Therefore, no one who accepts that a change in moral belief is reasonable can consistently maintain a subjectivist position. Problems with Moral Subjectivism
Consider the belief, “There’s nothing wrong with stealing candy,” and then translate this claim in terms of Simple Subjectivism
“There is nothing wrong with stealing candy.” = “I (the speaker) approve of stealing candy.”
Now suppose the person abandons this belief, claiming instead that, “Stealing Candy is wrong.”
What could explain this change of heart?
What implications follow from adopting the subjectivist view?
How are these implications problematic for this theory? Problems with Moral Subjectivism
Suppose person X believes that, “stealing candy is unjust,” and person Y believes that, “stealing candy is just.”
Now, suppose Person X is a moral subjectivist.
What reason could X give to persuade Y that “stealing candy is unjust?”
Does this question even make sense in the logic of moral subjectivism?
What difficulty does this pose for the theory of moral subjectivism? Problems with Moral Subjectivism
1. If moral subjectivism is correct, then no moral opinion can be objectively more rational or better informed than any other moral opinion.
2. This would mean that opinions based on irrelevant reasons are equally rational as beliefs based on relevant reasons. (e.g. “Stealing is wrong because it harms people’s interests,” and “Stealing is wrong because oysters live in saltwater,” are equally justified positions.)
3. This would mean also that opinions based on false reasons are equally rational as beliefs based on true reasons. (e.g. “Torturing babies is wrong because babies suffer,” and “torturing babies is okay because babies feel no pain,” are equally rational positions.)
4. Premises 2 and 3 above are untenable.
5. So, Subjectivism is not a rational position. Problems with Moral Subjectivism
If moral beliefs are merely subjective opinions or statements of personal approval, then…
A person could never provide reasons to justify their beliefs.
A person could never provide reasons for others to adopt a belief.
There would be no rational grounds for ever changing one’s mind.
If one were to change their mind, there would be no rational grounds for believing their revised belief was either better or worse than their previous belief.
People would be infallible in matters of morality. That is, one could never be mistaken in asserting a moral belief. Cultural Relativism
Unlike Moral Subjectivism, which claims moral truth is relative to the individual speaker, Cultural Relativism clams that moral truth is relative to a particular Culture or Socieity. The primary features of Cultural Relativism include:
Different societies have different moral codes (descriptive assumption) There is no objective standard for believing one societal code is better than another. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many.
There is no “universal truth” in ethics; that is there are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times. The moral code of a society determines what is “right” or “wrong” within that society; It is mere arrogance for us to judge the conduct of other peoples. Cultural Relativism
The Argument For Cultural Relativism: The “Cultural Differences Argument”
1. Different cultures have different moral codes. (descriptive relativism)
2. Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.
(Note: This argument represents a barrier to critical thinking) Cultural Relativism: Moral vs. Descriptive Relativism
Descriptive relativism:
Claims as a matter of fact that different cultures have different moral values. (Note: Though there are disagreements on details, descriptive relativism is not controversial, nor a problem for critical thinking.)
Cultural relativism:
Claims that each culture is right unto itself. Cultural relativists insist that the meaning of “good,” “bad,” “wrong,” “right,” and the like, defined by the community or culture within which they are used. Descriptive Relativism
Descriptive Relativism claims that different cultural groups have different moral beliefs and norms of behavior. Some of the disciplines that provide evidential support for descriptive relativism include:
Cultural Anthropology
Sociology
Group, Cultural, and Organizational Psychology
History
Humanities, Literature, Art, Philosophy, etc. Descriptive Relativism: Some Challenges
How does one define a “culture” or “society?”
Most cultures are complex and contain innumerable sub-groups with cultural norms distinct from each other or with the majority culture.
Most cultures (especially in the modern era of global transportation and communications) are deeply integrated or otherwise overlap with different cultures.
Some cultural groups have no geographical or governmental borders. Members of a diaspora, for example, may share common values or norms while being separated and dispersed among, and integrated within, many distinct societies.
Many, if not most, people personally identify with more than one distinct culture. The Case for Cultural Relativism
The Argument For Cultural Relativism: The “Cultural Differences Argument”
Different cultures have different moral codes (descriptive relativism)
Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.
(Note: This argument represents a barrier to critical thinking) Basic claims of Cultural Relativism
1. Different societies have different moral codes (descriptive claim)
2. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another.
3. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many.
4. There is no “universal truth” in ethics; that is there are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times.
5. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.
6. It is mere arrogance (group bias) for us to judge the conduct of other peoples. Problems with Cultural Relativism Cultural Relativism imposes a logical inconsistency on its proponents.
Cultural Relativists hold that the beliefs of their own culture is not objectively better or worse than any other culture. No culture’s beliefs are superior or inferior to another’s.
Cultural Relativists believe that what is “morally right or true” for a person is whatever their culture says is morally right or true.
Some cultures condemn the moral beliefs and practices of other cultures, claiming the other culture is inferior.
So, a Cultural relativist living in such a culture would have to believe both…
That their culture is right to condemn the moral beliefs of another culture (because this is what their culture says is right to believe).
That their culture is wrong to condemn the moral beliefs of another culture (because this is what one must believe as a cultural relativist). If Cultural Relativism is true…
We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are inferior (nor superior) to our own.
We could decide whether actions are right or wrong by consulting the standards of our society. (Relativism shares this characteristic with sociocentric absolutism.)
The idea of moral progress is deemed impossible.
The possibility of a pluralist society is undermined. Cultural Relativism offers no standard for dealing with conflicts between cultures - precisely where resolution of conflict is most urgently needed.
The standard of moral proof becomes “might makes right.” Only the dominant culture may successfully determine moral truth for the entire culture. Morality, in this case, is determined by the ability to maintain political power.
Commerce and trade (e.g. within Multinational corporations) that employs controversial methods such as sweat shops, slave labor, race and gender discrimination, or environmental destruction could not be morally criticized.