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.