Evaluation of The Weaknesses of Relativism Theory

The belief that all people and cultures have different values, or relativism, is not a controversial topic. Philosophers and ordinary people alike understand that groups as well as individuals disagree on morally charged subjects to an extent. Many times, ethnically different groups express the same value in different ways, which is where many mistakes are made unintentionally. One culture may show respect to elders by hugging them, another by bowing, and another by kissing their feet. While we may disagree on the ‘correct’ way to show respect to elders, essentially all cultures are attempting to fulfill the same value. After explaining other types of more controversial relativism, I will explain why the theory is fairly weak. Relativism is implausible because it contradicts religious values, is not a strong alternative to absolutism, and falsifies the concept of moral progress.

The more contentious form of relativism, prescriptive or normative relativism, is the idea that no culture is technically wrong because everyone creates his or her own morality. Within prescriptive relativism are group and individual relativism, which really only differ in the fact that they refer to the group and individual respectively. While group relativism claims that morals are relative to each culture and practices toleration towards others, individual relativism relates to each person’s own moral values. Individual relativism simply allows each person to approve or disapprove with a moral and be correct with either choice. Since everyone is correct in their own sense, morality and values depend on the consent of the group or individual and give no logical room to allow judgment or intolerance from other cultures. This is the type of relativism that is hard to hold true because of the many criticisms it attracts.

Prescriptive relativism contradicts religious values and morals for those that believe in God or another higher power supreme over all. For religious people, their ethics are found in readings and teachings given to them by their God. Many times, values found in the Bible are said to be right or wrong all of the time. Examples include lying, stealing, murder, love, and kindness. The first three are found in the 10 commandments where in Leviticus 22:31 we are told, “you shall keep my commandments and do them; I am the LORD.” Practicing Christians are never to commit these sins because, in the eyes of God, committing these acts are rarely in our best interest or in the best interest of someone else. While we are never to steal or kill one another, we are called to always love and be kind to one another no matter the circumstance. Galatians 5:14 “Love you neighbor as your self,” articulates that we should be kind and loving to another even if they have wronged us. A relativist would say it is okay to kill or not based on what your culture believes. A relativist would also agree that no one can be judged based on their actions since each culture or person’s morals are correct. Just as religious individuals’ values are found in their God, relativists believe that morals are based on social norms alone. This kind of thinking is fallacious because it is essentially saying, “my morals are right because I think they are right.” An example of the differences between relativism and religious morals is the difference of opinion on suicide. According to Christianity, suicide is a sin that is always frowned upon. While all people commit sins, suicide should never be executed regardless if the individual believes in God or their culture’s beliefs. Meanwhile in culture A, suicide is an honorable action that is praised and shows one’s pride for their culture. A relativist would say that both cultures have the right to their opinion on suicide, and based on their cultural norms their values are right. What a relativist would not agree with is the ‘judgment’ that Christians have towards other cultures that do not see suicide as a sin.

Another common misconception when it comes to prescriptive relativism is that if you are not an absolutist you must be considered a relativist. Instead, a better alternative for absolutism is objectivism because it is somewhere in the middle of the two on a spectrum. Absolutism is the belief that some moral rules apply to all times and places with no exception. An absolutist would believe something like lying is wrong at all times and in all cultures. Many people make the jump from absolutism to relativism because they believe that situations vary and absolutism doesn’t give much room for compromise. Having already discussed relativism, objectivism is a nice middle ground between the two extremes. Objectivism is the theory that there is a distinguishable truth to everything, even if no one recognizes it or holds it to be true. A simplified example is that 2+2=4 regardless of a person’s opinion on the subject. An objectivist could also believe that it is okay to lie sometimes in cases that it would potentially hurt someone if you told him or her the truth. Essentially, objectivists have values just like everyone else but they decide what to do on a situational basis. Objectivism measures whether a moral rule is correct independent of our opinion while absolutism measures if it is ever morally sound to break a value.

The final criticism that decreases the integrity of relativism is on the subject of social and moral progress in the world. In many areas not exclusive to science and social reforms, as time goes on we believe that we learn from mistakes made and are able to make things better through trial and error. Buying into relativism falsifies the concept of moral progress because according to relativists, in order to decide that a process needs changing you are judging it as bad or incompetent. An example of this comes from the long history of women’s rights. Many years ago, women did not have the same rights men including the right to vote. Protesters for the 19th amendment, according to relativists, would be considered to be wrongfully judging a culture because they wanted reform. Since women’s rights protesters wanted the system to be changed, they in theory accused the present process as incompetent. According to relativism, judging old ways as bad and potential new ways as better is unacceptable because no one is objectively incorrect in their beliefs. Because the present day is considered ‘better’ than any number of years ago, under the theory of relativism, any kind of progress is a moot concept. Since most people believe that moral and social progress has been beneficial for our world and country, it is hard to defend and consider yourself a tried and true relativist.

The reasons that I have mentioned above are only a few of many that help explain why prescriptive relativism is a weak theory. It is difficult to be a relativist because of the fact that there are no exceptions to the rules. After virtually excluding religious persons unintentionally, relativism also is not the best choice for those that don’t consider themselves to be absolutists since they are both opposite extremes. With two groups of people most likely passing on relativism, it also goes against the many trying to reform just about anything. While descriptive relativism is something that most everyone can agree to be true, prescriptive relativism is a theory usually accompanied with controversy, criticism, and weakness.