Belindi wrote: ↑
January 18th, 2019, 11:28 am
Right you are eduk! (Except for mystics). i
I think that 'objective' does not mean the same as 'absolute'. 'Objective' is usually to do with statistical significance.
Explain to me how a relativist can say that an absolutist is bad for thinking they know for sure that X is good or bad. The relativist can think that the absolutist is in error, but not bad. In error in thinking he knows that X is good or bad.
From Stanfords philosophy dictionary....
Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. More precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. Relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.
Since the relativist and the absolutist do not share the same culture, to the specific extent around morals, it makes no sense to judge the absolutist's moral judgments as bad or good.
If the relativist is arguing against deontology. IOW that 'it depends on the context'. They are saying that the absolutist is wrong to rule out certain actions without evaluating the context, a new set of problems arises for the relativist. Since the relativist thinks that there is no actual access to knowing what is good or bad, since these are culturally dependent and no objective, by what standards does he evaluate the objectivists absolutism, in general or around a specific issue, as bad or good.
I come across two chess players playing losing chess - a game where you have to take if you can and where the object is to get the other player to take all of your pieces. The King is simply another piece. I can tell them they are playing incorrectly. But once they tell me they are playing losing chess, I cannot tell them they are playing immorally. Now I know they have different conventions. The relativist by definition must look at all morals and all moral choices as just like various options for playing chess - and there are more versions of chess so we can have a real muliticultural metaphor here.
So again, a relativist can point out contradictions. The relativist can say that the absolutists epistemology is unconvincing. But the relativist cannot judge the absolutist, his acts or his judgments as bad.
Many critiques of absolutism are based on a principle of tolerance. The problem for the relativist is that this becomes deontological itself, or it is really not an effective counter. Why should the absolutist put this commandment above his own?
It seems like some people are conflating
IOW absolutists do not take in the context, so they are bad.
But relativism is not, or not simply, consequentialism.
If the abolutist is wrong for judging homosexual behavior, say, because they should be more tolerant. This is not relativism. It is working from a value that however nuanced it may be applied and however much consequences are evaluated, it is making an absolute judgment that tolerance should be prioritized.
And one can, also, due to the same value, be intolerant of certain absolutists.
If we want to argue that relativists will not do what absolutists have done to homosexuals, we still have the problem that this is not relativism. Because again we have implicit at least moral values taken as absolutes.
And of course you are judging one culture as better than another. Most of the people calling themselves relativists judge fundamentalist culture as bad. Unless they are focused on the oppresssion, say, of Muslims, when they may feel that they should not be judged. Since often relativists are on the left, looking at power dynamics, and seeing Muslims in the West as oppressed and Christian fundamentalists are trying to use, for example, legislation or a community to oppress. So they find themselved judging one set of fundamentalists and not the other, at least in certain contexts.
And this isn't even bringing in the relativism around truth.