Mulling over Relativism (Part 2)

Part 1

Relativism, in itself, in its truest form,  can be called rational. Relativism, in itself, can be called a reasonable conclusion. Yet relativism, in itself, is an inescapable hole. It is a dogma – a dogma that shrugs off questioning and free thought. It is a bottomless pit that can only be dug into, but not exited from…once the shovel breaks ground. 

Last post, we explained relativism as the belief that “nobody is objectively right or wrong.” The premise of mainstream relativism, although no one likes to say it, is that morals really aren’t that existent in the first place. That was clear and explained in Part 1.

And from that premise, we can draw inferences on the implications. When there is no real right and wrong, no true right and wrong, the question is raised on how one goes about deciding right and wrong. It would have to fall into, I think, a hedonistic or nihilistic attitude – the first being “be good because it feels good” and the second being “be good because human nature is a bull you can’t fight”. And whether it’s admitted or not, those are the only two bases to which someone could have relativist morality. Arguably, the nihilist one is hedonistic in its essence, too, which is similar to what I discussed on altruism.

And from the basis of hedonism, one would only question their values if it appealed to them to do so. For nihilism, it would never. And it is fair to say that those who like to question are few in numbers – the rest are dogmatic, and have no reason to care to not be. So where is the dogma, now? When a philosophy doesn’t bother with questioning, where is the intellectual endeavor, the desire to learn?  No where found.

In religious philosophies, and I won’t be so arbitrary as to say all, but in many, questioning is imperative. Learning is necessary. Inquiry is a way to the Divine. And there is no hole digging – there is stair climbing. Sure, one may question themselves out of faith. One may start to believe something just isn’t right about X or Y religion. And when they do so, they may fall to an agnosticism – possibly, then, leading to a relativism. The entire process was reasonable. To travel from faith to doubt, from absolute to relative, is normal and fine and in many cases the smartest move there is. Yet at the beginning of the relativist road is a trap. A hole, that when entered, may never be left again. For one when is led to believe questioning is unnecessary, why try? 

It is a sad loop that there isn’t much to stop from happening. Sure, X relativist can say that everyone should ponder, and continue to gain knowledge, and continue to question themselves. But X relativist has no right to tell Y relativist what to do”because nobody is right or wrong, [so] we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree” (that’s a contradiction in itself, but that’s for another day). And when it comes down to the masses, I’ll bet, most would be Y’s – living in mental comfort and contentment. “Philosophy is dead“, to some, and it would be a darn nice world if it was.

So relativism, to recap, so far, in its pragmatic and general form, is:

1) dogmatic

2) appealing – the easy way out

3) hedonism

And I thought religion was all that?

Mulling over relativism (Part 1)

Part 2

 Relativism, briefly, is the belief that “nobody is objectively right or wrong” and that “because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree.” Like the golden rule, it sounds like common sense and the rational approach to sensitive issues. Alas, I treat it with skepticism. In this post, I’m going to start with what we all agree about moral relativism and take readers step by step through the implications of this intriguing philosophy. Enjoy the ride!

———-

The premise of mainstream relativism, although no one likes to say it, is that morals really aren’t that existent in the first place. That’s a dangerous accusation Wikipedia and others try to stray from, and there are obvious reasons why. However, to say there is no such thing as “objective” morality is to say that morality is the converse: “subjective”. And to say morality is subjective leads to an interpretive anarchy – believe what you want to believe…live how you want to live.

It’s no wonder moral relativism has its critics. Not only does it throw the entire good vs. bad paradigm into the trash, but it also threatens the entire philosophical discourse on morality. All of a sudden, one has an escape route to the tough moral questions by saying that the questions are flawed and have no answers. It’s easy to see how this is attractive, as all of a sudden the tough questions are no longer tough at all – in fact, they are no longer worthy of asking. At the same time, a lack of answers leads to deeper and deeper questions that become more and more troubling: why the heck am I living in the first place?

And that question has always been ever-so-hard to answer. But now that one potential answer has been crossed out – the idea that humans live to be good people – there’s not so many left. You could say that one’s own purpose is to be good in their own standards, another escape hatch, but that leads to more and more questions: why should one have a moral standard in the first place?

Certainly, such an existential outlook wouldn’t be Kierkegaardian. If one resolves to follow  a moral outlook, then, the reasoning has to be something besides “being good because it’s good”. It would have to fall into, I think, a hedonistic or nihilistic attitude – the first being “be good because it feels good” and the second being “be good because human nature is a bull you can’t fight”. Both views are evidently seen as disgusting by all non-relativists or all non-mainstream relativists, and it’s not difficult to see why. It also presses the question on why such views should even be allowed in moral discussion, when neither makes an attempt for “true” morality.

And that’s the catch. The discussion boils down to if there is “true” morality. Is there any objective truth at all? Whether there is or not, relativists would insist the question is unnecessary. If you start with the premise that there are no morals, why bother to look for morals when it’s just a waste of time? Especially if your hedonistic self doesn’t want to bother, or if your nihilistic self hates asking questions. Which makes relativism all the more difficult to talk about – when taking that stance could lead to never questioning the stance again.

And suddenly religion isn’t the dogmatic one. Uh oh.

 

Part 2