Do some kinds of disagreements disprove the idea that one side is right and the other wrong?
Barnaby Cullen
The notion that one idea is right and the other wrong subscribes to an absolutist point of view. 1 That is to say, that there are objective universal truths which exist and are valid, independent of mankind. This concept is prevalent in scientific schools of thought. According to an absolutist, their objective principle, be it concerning morality or how the world works, is an invisible truth and anything contrary to it is wrong. The polar opposite of this is relativism, which holds that there are no objective truths, although this does not have to extend to every aspect of human thought. Instead, the concept in question, be it knowledge or morality, are context-dependent, being subjective and reliant on an individual or a society's particular circumstances or point of view. And, while this does mean that there are disagreements, as many people will argue for different perspectives, neither of these sides necessarily have to be right or wrong – no judgement needs to be passed. A relativist disagreement is one which can disprove the idea that one side is right and the other wrong. Relativism is at its most basic the denial of absolute truths, preferring subjective, contextually- dependent perspectives. It argues, with plenty of empirical evidence, that viewpoints differ depending on the society from which they come, historical developments and geography having meant that societies develop differently. This much is not contested. But the crux of relativism is that since there are no absolute truths or values, that none of the various different viewpoints have any more validity than the others and thus that no decision can be made regarding which one of the conflicting viewpoints is right or wrong. The degree to which this viewpoint is applied to different aspects of human activity differs, but the essential view is the same. Relativists effectively take on one-place predicates, e.g. John is poor, and turn them into two-place predicates e.g. John is poor, relative to the rest of his society. It could be that a society exists in which John would be considered reasonably wealthy. The most general type of relativism is that all other types are reducible to it, and the most extreme is relativism about knowledge. The extreme of this alethic relativism advocates that all claims to knowledge are contextually reliant, differing depending on society, religion etc. Hence, we cannot claim to know anything to be objectively, absolutely true and thus, having dismissed the notion of universal truth, no one can be considered to be wrong. This view, taken to extremes, is untenable, as it means that truth, which is a justified belief, requires no justification and is instead reliant on society, and can change. Take for example the change from the geo-centric to the helio-centric model of the universe. Before Galileo and Copernicus, it was widely held by societies that the sun orbited the earth. This notion was of course disproved. However, although the geo-centric model may have been true as far as humans were concerned, it was not true in fact. Truth did not change; Galileo was right and the church wrong. (Indeed, strong relativism about knowledge is self-defeating, for if one were to say that everything is relative then that statement would be false, for it is an absolute statement.) Relativism about rationality concerns judgements of rational or irrational behaviour. Its strong aspects argue that there is no universal way to distinguish between rational and irrational reasoning, and thus that they are subject to context, which, like relativism about knowledge, renders indistinguishable good, rational arguments from bad, irrational ones and thus is not convincing. Its weaker counterpart, however, limits the terms, and whilst it does accept that there are certain factors individual to each society which therefore affects the way in which they might justify calling someone rational or not, it does not mean that rational and irrational behaviour are rendered indistinguishable by social and cultural differences.
1 This essay was entered for the Erasmus essay competition 2014.
18
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker