A specter looms over ILP, which I hasten to dub with the name, “quack relativism”. The whence and the wherefore of this serpentine doctrine is a mystery amongst us, and though at length have I perused with care its coils and folds—I can find neither the head, nor any argument in favor of it, nor its end. And how the fangs of this unlikely doctrine could have spread its venom to those amongst us, I can only assume was by surprise, upon unknowing (and ignorant) victims. No two people have done more to advance the cause of wisdom and reason than the team of Socrates and Plato, who both believed that all evil was due to ignorance, and in that spirit I’m here to shed light, and heal you!
…Well, that was a bit dramatic.
But seriously, there’s no fucking argument at all—let alone a good one—for relativism. I’m speaking specifically to relativists… iambiguous, Only_Humean, and volchok. Why are you relativists? You are not “quacks”, you are just relativists—but someone without an argument is a quack. This is where I’d like to see your argument, good or bad. So, I thought long and hard… and I asked myself, “How would someone argue that relativism is true?”. Here’s what I came up with: Two terrible arguments.
First, let’s just be clear about what relatvism is. Relativism is the view that moral norms are true/justified just by the opinion of the individual or society holding them. What does this mean? It means, for a “relativist”, that any idea about how you ought to act is true so long as the person holding it thinks its true. In other words, anything is justified to a relativist, so long as the person justifying it thinks it is. What goes on in a society is judged only by the prevailing norms of that society. That means, anything is justified so long as it is justified by the only norms that matter—those of the person or society in question.
Argument #1:
P1. Different cultures have different moral norms.
C. Therefore, the truth of moral norms is relative to cultures.
If I were to run this argument in the case of any disputed scientific proposition, (and its disputants), I would rightly be booed off the stage. And nobody running such a bizarre argument is likely to want to allow the converse, namely:
P1. Different cultures agree about most moral norms.
C. Therefore, the truth of most moral norms is universal.
This is also a terrible argument, but it’s what a “relativist” is committed to if he commits himself to the first one. At this point, I could not think up another reason to be a “relativist”. So, I researched. I found the following, which is called the “Cultural Tolerance Argument”. It runs as follows:
Argument #2:
P1. We should be toleratnt of other cultures.
P2. To believe other cultures can be morally wrong is intolerant.
C. Therefore, moral relativism is true.
I would be ashamed of myself to adhere to an argument to the relativity of morality that contains as its first premise a moral premise (about what we should do). What happens next is bizarre… the truth of the conclusion would make the first premise false. And the truth of the first premise would make the conclusion false! Ridiculous!
“Relativists” of ILP, speak up! From whence and wherefore your serpentine doctrine!? Is this what you have to say for yourselves?! Strong arguments are required, because the arguments against are mighty strong.
Ohh, what is that you say? You say “you don’t need an argument for your position, because you just argue against its opposite”? Ahhh, nothing could be further from the truth. In your every word and action you presume that morality is objective.
- You don’t feel in your bones that the wrongness of wrong actions is simply your opinion—that’s not the phenomenology.
- And nor is it the ordinary language that you everywhere use.
- And nor is it how you behave, when you debate with others on moral topics. Indeed you can say, “Ahhh yes, but in our opinion many things are morally wrong”. But that’s contradictory, because your position is that they are not morally wrong, so long as their view coheres with their culture. In your opinion, they have both feet in the moral right—when their culture says so. And only if someone shares your values is persuasion possible. But you think some of the practices of others are wrong precisely because they don’t share your values! Which means, according to you, that persuasion is not possible. So, if you are a quack relativist, don’t talk and act like it is.
Lo these many years, in our history, there has been significant moral progress.
- We no longer judge people by the color of their skin.
- We no longer think having breasts means being inferior.
- We no longer keep and beat slaves.
And forward thinking people, like myself, recognize vastly more progress that needs to be made.
- We ought not discriminate against people by their sexual orientation.
- We ought recognize in our farming and food practices that animals suffer.
My friends, self-reflection matters, and self-criticism matters. To those who think that moral norms are justified only by the person or culture, then those moral norms—whatever they happen to be—are always already justified. Not only is there no cause for self-reflection and self-criticism, if “relativism” is true, but there’s no need—according to relativism.
Many will argue in favor of tolerance as an obligation. We should be tolerant of the beliefs of others. That is a normative claim. But recognize that if this claim is meant to apply to the decidedly intolerant, then relativism is false. And if this claim is not meant to apply to others, then you’ll forgive them for not caring about it.
I am a river to my people.
