The Concept of Relativism - Coursework Example

Relativism Introduction The concept of relativism has contributed to the technological expansions and astonishing explanations of the modern world (Swoyer 2014). This concept denotes that there are no absolute truths. Relativism is derived from a family of views that believe the integral aspect of every individual’s experience, thought or evaluation is relative to something else. For example, moral principles are derived from culture, language or biology of a given group. Therefore, this concept suggests that the truths of A are as a result of a parameter B (Swoyer 2014). This relativist schema denotes that A is a dependent variable whereas, B is an independent variable. The supporters of this theory argue that in the stated schema, A refers to societal realities such as cognitive differences or experience. Factor B refers to something that is perceived to lead to the differences, such as historical events. There are various classes of relativism, such as cultural relativism and moral relativism (Swoyer 2014). Researchers have used the concept of relativism to prescribe the various societal differences in the world, majorly cultural, cognitive and behavioural. However, there are critics of this concept who feel that relativism is not a valid way of describing the social world. Early Accounts of Relativism The concept of relativism dates back to early Greek times from the 5th century BCE onwards. Philosopher Herodotus identified the cultural differences between the Indians and the Persians. He went ahead to state that if either of the two cultures was asked which culture was ideal, they would each support their individual cultures. This was one of the earliest indications that individual perception about what is right or wrong varies with culture (Baghramian 2004). The development of relativism is largely owing to the attempt to refute or support it. Protagoras’ Abdera is the earliest record of the theory of relativism. According to Protagoras, “Man is the measure of all things. He is the measure (metron) of things that are and things that are not” (Klausz 2010). According to Protagoras, things appear to him as he perceives them to be. The philosopher explains that his perception is contrary to another person’s perceptions. Plato contradicts this theory and further contributes on the matter in his two dialogues on Protagoras’ accounts. In one of Plato’s dialogue, such as the Theatetus, Plato states that the truth of a matter is influenced by an individual’s perception (Baghramin 2004). Aristotle criticises Protagora’s work in his Metaphysics. According to Aristotle “Relativism is tantamount to the denial of the principle of non-contradiction” (Baghramin 2004). He states that if man is a measure of all things, then people would assign value of true and false in the same level of assertion that makes the act in question both true and false (Baghramin 2004). The result of this response would contravene the basic principle of non-contradiction (Baghramin 2004). Despite Aristotle and Plato’s criticism, the Protagora theory on relativism survived all the way to the Hellenistic period (Krausz 2010). The key difference between the Greek philosophy account and the modern account is that the later, states that what is true or false is based on cultural, biological or conceptual differences. Whereas, the Greek philosophers mainly focussed their discussions on the idea that things are relative to each other (Krausz 2010). Moreover, early accounts on relativism did not clearly offer a distinction between skeptism and relativism. Modern Philosophies on Relativism Michael de Montaigne was one of the modern philosophers who researched about the concept of relativism. The researcher sought to distinguish between scepticism and relativism. The series of discussions on relativism resulted in the development of universalism and relativism in early modern philosophy (Krausz 2010). De Montaigne stated that there were no universal laws of human behaviors. The new philosophy of universalism changed the French society and led to the development of secular humanism and a modern scientific outlook (Krausz 2010). According to Krausz, contemporary relativism owes its development to enlightenment of the 18th century and the later Romantic movement of the 19th century (Krausz 2010). The continual research on relativism resulted in the development and classification of the concept. Early researchers such as Giambattista Vico and Johann George Hamann contributed to the development of relativism through identification and analyses of the various cultural differences in the human society. Their research opened a way for the in-depth interpretation of moral systems and cognitive (Baghramin 2004). Vico’s works contributed to the development of the relativist approach. Moreover, his work influenced other researchers such as Collingwood on comprehending the relativist theory. Kant, Hagel and Nietzsche’s works provided the basis for the categorisation of contemporary relativism (Baghramin 2004). According to Kant, our senses perceive our surroundings differently, and this contributes to the different perceptions of how people view the world (Baghramin 2004). Therefore, our worldly apprehensions are influenced by our forms of intuition and categories of knowledge. This theory led to the development of conceptual relativism by Grote. The Kantian theories of relativism and other works contributed to the categorisation of contemporary relativism. Currently, there are three forms of relativism. These forms are cultural relativism, normative relativism and personal relativism. Cultural Relativism According to cultural relativism, people should not judge the behaviors of others based on their own culture. The genesis of this notion is from the discussions between relativism in the philosophy of science and the philosophy of language (Perry 2007). This theory rejects the notion that any cultural standpoint is more advantaged than the other. The discussions on relativism and realism also resulted in the identification of this concept. According to realism, what is true and real exists independently in the mind (Perry 2007). Cultural relativism is a cluster of doctrines (Wong 2011). These doctrines contribute to the different classes of thought on cultural relativism. Culture refers to the way of life governing a particular group of people. It consists of shared beliefs, norms, practices and perception that direct the individual’s and societal life (Lee 2005). The ethical codes derived from culture govern the code of conduct, attitudes and character of its members. Moreover, culture directs the societal ways of acquiring knowledge, modes of inquiry and justification of beliefs pertaining to human affairs and the world (Lee 2005). There are two categories of cultural relativism. The first category is radical cultural relativism. This category states that culture is the sole source of validity of a moral right to rule (McLennan 2001). Contrarily, radical universalism states that culture is irrelevant to the validity of moral rights and rules of a society. These two categories bring forth the notion of relativism and universalism. The two categories are further divided into strong and weak cultural relativism. The two schools of thought differ in their application. For example, the radical group views culture as the integral factor that provides a basis for ethical and moral conduct. However, cultural universalism allows the existence of a few universal basic rights (McLennan 2001). Descriptive cultural relativism identifies the widespread and fundamental cultural differences between groups. Whereas, the epistemological cultural relativism state that the differences identified cannot be adjudicated. According to Wong, resolving some beliefs gives the perception that some cultures are better or worse than others. Normative cultural relativism states that all categories of cultural relativism agree with the general tolerance and respect for differences (Wong 2011). There are supporters and critics to this concept. First, the moral and political conservatives state that this concept deviates from societal objectives and identifiable standards. This deviation is as a result of all the truths claimed by this concept (Glazer 2008). Cultural relativism enables us to identify the fundamental differences between societies. According to Wong, this concept enables us to identify important consequences identified through descriptive cultural relativism (Wong 2011). Moreover, this concept enables us to identify that no objective or standard can be used to judge the society. Therefore, people are expected to be tolerant and respectful to people from diverse cultures. However, critics state that this theory genuinely supports epistemological relativism. Consequentially, this theory results in ethical consequences, that is, the theory itself becomes judgemental through telling people how to behave in the presence of other groups (Wong 2011). Furthermore, critics argue that the theory is largely opinionated. Cultural relativism is a valid way of describing the modern world. The society consists of a plethora of cultures and subcultures. Each of these cultures has their set of doctrines and code of ethics. One particular example is the tribe in Hudson Bay North America that initially practiced the killing of elderly parents by the children. According to this culture, this act was an act of kindness. It was through this ritual that the parents were spared from the harsh environment (Wong 2011). Moreover, through this ritual, the children prepared their parents for the afterlife. This ritual appalled the early European explorers. The Europeans were from a different cultural niche that was contrary to the beliefs of this community. Through the application of cultural relativism, we can comprehend that the two groups are culturally different thereby exercise a level of tolerance. Moreover, another group can argue that the two communities share a similar belief in benevolence. However, compassion to parents is practiced differently between the two groups (Wong 2011). There are protagonists who believe that cultural relativism does not apply to the social world. First, this concept supports that there is no universal code of ethics (Nayak 2013). Cultural relativism prohibits us from condemning other cultural practices as immoral. This is because judging other cultures implies that there is an external universal code by which other cultures may be judged (Nayak 2013). According to the example stated above. The act of ritual killing by the tribe in Hudson Bay is not morally wrong. Therefore, critics argue that the conclusions derived from this concept cannot be applied to the social world. Application of this theory to the social world would result in the approval of various acts that may be disruptive, for example, female circumcision in some parts of Africa (Rachel 1999). Cultural relativism doubts the existence of moral progress. According to this theory, a community cannot be said to have abandoned a previous way of life for a better one. This notion is derived from the fact that cultural relativism does not allow individuals to judge the different cultures (Rachels 1999). Progress denotes a change in the way things are carried out in the society (Rachels 1999). According to this theory, there is no set standard upon which individuals can make judgements based on the present change of culture and the previous cultures. This notion is socially wrong because there have been numerous cultural changes in the modern society that are deemed better than the previous cultures. For example, previously in the U.S. women were not allowed to vote or inherit property. This practice has changed over the years and in present cultures women have rights. This change is widely perceived as a moral progress (Rachels 1999). The theory of relativism is internally inconsistent and therefore not applicable to the modern society (Swoyer 2014). Relativism prohibits criticising of other cultures. This doctrine is not applicable to the society because there is a plethora of cultural practices or behaviors that are perceived to be ethically wrong. Relativism supports that people should not impose what they perceive to right on other peoples culture (Swoyer 2014). However, there are some cultural practices that are deemed intolerable and demand change, for example, the issue of child labour in developing countries. Relativists would argue that this act is culturally appropriate yet the reality is that it is morally wrong. The concept of relativism threatens the basis of religion. Currently a vast number of people submit to a particular religious doctrine. The majority of these religions particularly the Catholic Church view relativism as a threat to the very basis of religion (Runzo 2007).Relativism denies absolute truths. However, according to religious doctrines, such as Christianity, GOD is the absolute truth. Thereby, it is perceived that by denying the existence of an absolute truth, the concept creates room for the possibility of sin and a life devoid of the absolute faith in GOD (Runzo 2007). Runzo clearly states in his work if each religion becomes an exclusive and isolated universe of discourse, then in accordance to the concept of relativism, the conclusion would be the occurrence of punitive religions that are based on the correctness or incorrectness of an individual or society (Runzo 2007). Relativism prohibits us from criticising our societal rules. According to this theory, people can decide what is right or wrong by consulting the standards governing the society. This is implausible because many people do not perceive their societal code as perfect (Davidson 2014). One particular example is the Infanticide cultural practice by the Eskimos. A local leader of this region would find no error in this practice based on the cultural laws on the region. The consequence of this theory is disturbing and, therefore, cannot apply in today’s society. In conclusion, the concept of relativism is a valid way of viewing the world .This concept acknowledges the presence of cultural differences in the society. Moreover, it accurately explains how different societies perceive what is right or wrong based on their cultures. However, some researches view this theory as being vastly opinionated and general. Critics of this theory state that even though there are cultural differences, the world does contain absolute truths (Davidson 2014). In light of recent issues of globalisation and human rights, this theory is deemed vastly inapplicable to the plethora of challenges that face the modern world. References Baghramian, Maria (2004) A brief history of relativism: A contemporary anthology, (MichaelKrausz, ed.), Columbia University Press. Davidson D.Bruce (2014) The pitfalls of cultural relativism, viewed 19 April 2015 from . Glazer, M. (2008) Cultural relativism, viewed 19 April 2015 from . Krausz, M. (2010) Relativism: a contemporary anthology, Columbia University Press, pp.33-39. Lee, M.K. (2005). Epistemology after Protagoras: responses to relativism in Plato, Aristotle, and Democritus. McLennan, G. (2001), Thus: Reflections on Loughborough Relativism. History of Human Sciences, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 85-101. Nayak, B. 2013, Challenges of cultural relativism and the future of feminist universalism Journal of Politics and Law, vol 6, no. 2. Perry, J., Bratman, M. & Fischer, J.M. (2007) Introduction to philosophy: classical and contemporary readings. Rachels, J. (1999) The challenge of cultural relativism by the elements of moral philosophy. McGraw-Hill, Inc. Reprinted by permission of the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Chapter 2, pp. 15-29. Runzo, J. (2007) Religion, relativism & conceptual schemes/chapman college, Californian pp. 38-50. Shweder, R.A. (2012). Relativism and universalism, Companion to Moral Anthropology, ed. Didier Fassi New York: Wiley, pp. 85-102. Swoyer, C. (2014) "Relativism", The Stanford encyclopaedia of winter edition: Edward N. Zalta (ed.), viewed 19 April 2015 from . Wong, B.D. (2011) Cultural relativism UNESCO – EOLSS sample chapters institutional issues involving ethics and justice. Encyclopaedia of Life Support 2011, viewed 19 April 2015 from . Read More