Relativism is Self-Refuting
by Glenn Smith
People who hold to relativism in the area of goodness, evil, or morality hold that the standard of goodness can change from group to group. Relativists hold that each society can determine its own morality. Atheist Carl Sagan, for example, is quoted as saying the Ik tribe of Uganda systematically and institutionally ignore the ten commandments. This, and other examples like this, are said to be examples of how goodness is determined by each culture. Several problems arise with this view.
The idea is often more than just saying relativism exists, but relativists usually are at odds with objectivists who hold to objective, universal standards of goodness and morality. The relativist says, in effect, that relativism is right, objectivism is wrong, and relativism ought to be the way we all view goodness. The relativist ends up in a major conundrum. He must either hold that (1) relativism explains the way all goodness works for all people, or (2) it does not; these two options exhaust the possibilities. If he holds the first, that relativism is the way goodness works for all people, then the society next door is free to hold to whatever standard of goodness it sees fit. But if the society next door turns out to teach an objective standard of goodness that applies to all people, then the relativist is saying objective goodness is a proper thing for them to hold, which is in violation of his own sense of universal relativism. On the other hand, if the relativist holds the second, that relativism does not explain how goodness works for all people, then the society next door can teach objective goodness.
| ‘Like’ The Poached Egg on Facebook! | Follow @ThePoachedEgg | Donate to TPE! |
Perhaps the relativist would respond by saying that relativism is the way he holds morality, and this applies to everyone whether they realize it or not, and the objectivists next door are simply wrong. But this has not gotten out of the conundrum, for now the relativist is again saying that relativism is universally good and true. The relativist is now saying that it is universally true that there are no universals, or that it is unchangingly good to hold that goodness always changes. Our relativist friend has dug a self-refuting hole that cannot be escaped.
But it gets worse for the relativist, for no relativist is actually a consistent relativist…
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO CONTINUE READING >>>
Relativism is Self-Refuting | Thomistic Bent
RECOMMENDED APOLOGETICS RESOURCES FOR FURTHER READING:
Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air
True for You, But Not for Me: Overcoming Objections to Christian Faith
Shop at Amazon and help support The Poached Egg or donate now!
“Many people seem to think that a universal conception of morality requires that we find moral principles that admit of no exceptions. If, for instance, it is truly wrong to lie, it must always be wrong to lie – and if one can find a single exception, any notion of moral truth must be abandoned. But the existence of moral truth – that is, the connection between how we think and behave and our well-being – does not require that we define morality in terms of unvarying moral precepts. Morality could be a lot like chess: there are surely principles that generally apply, but they might admit of important exceptions. If you want to play good chess, a principle like “Don’t lose your Queen” is almost always worth following. But it admits of exceptions: sometimes sacrificing your Queen is a brilliant thing to do; occasionally, it is the only thing you can do. It remains a fact, however, that from any position in a game of chess there will be a range of objectively good moves and objectively bad ones. If there are objective truths to be known about human well-being – if kindness, for instance, is generally more conducive to happiness that cruelty is – then science should one day be able to make very precise claims about which of our behaviors and uses of attention are morally good, which are neutral, and which are worth abandoning.” –Sam Harris.