Relativists: Answer me this.?

Question

True relativists believe that there is no such thing as right or wrong, it is all relative to the situation and the person. Every person's beliefs are right for them, so no one else can judge. So, does this mean that we cannot say it is wrong or bad for suicide bombers to kill themselves or others, or that serial killers are all right, because they believe that what they are doing is ok? If we follow this reasoning, can't we also not make laws any more, because this is dictating what is right and wrong, and there is no such thing?

Answer 1

Sorry, I thought you were talking about family reunions. They can be relatively fun.

Answer 2

First, we need to get clear on what relativism is. you stated three different forms of relativism, but you made it seem like they were all the same.

1) not believing there is any right and wrong
2) believing there is a right and wrong but that it is relative to the situation, the culture, and the person in some way
3) believing that EVERYBODY is right, and nobody is ever wrong

as you can see, it would be inconsistent to hold all three positions. people that hold 1) are nihilists, not relativists. 2) are ethical relativists and also virtue ethicists. 3) is a very very extreme form of relativism.

"So, does this mean that we cannot say it is wrong or bad for suicide bombers to kill themselves or others, or that serial killers are all right, because they believe that what they are doing is ok?"

if you hold position 1), then it does mean exactly that. but position 1) is not relativism.

the relativist (position 2) would say that it depends on the norms and values of the culture and the situation. the important thing is is that it's not just relative to whatever the person thinks, but to the culture. since most cultures are against serial killers and terrorists (including the middle-east) I think the relativist can say these are usually wrong.

the extreme relativist (position 3) might say it's ok because the people that were doing the killing thought it was ok.

"we follow this reasoning, can't we also not make laws any more, because this is dictating what is right and wrong, and there is no such thing?"

no, here's an additional reason why. to create a law you do not have to prove anything about there existing some objective morality. even nihilists support laws. the reason is that laws are about fairness and preventing unecessary harm. so, even if someone says there's no proof that killing is wrong or that there is any right or wrong at all, they can still say that they don't want to be killed and they don't WANT to see others killed because they CARE about people and they think it's not HARMFUL for someone to be killed. if enough people feel this way, then you create laws to support it. now, if you could PROVE objective morality then it would help, but it's not necessary.

Answer 3

In my experience, absolute moral codes amount to a laundry list of "sins" that take no account of intention or consequence. These well-intentioned codes are formulated at a particular time and in a particular culture out of the prevailing conventional wisdom. They generally work well enough but are incapable of developing in response to new environmental developments (ecological, biological or cultural). Naturally they defend themselves by saying nothing really changes and that anything "new" is really a delusion.

But such an absolute "morality" would have to defend the public institution of slavery and the divine right of kings, while condemning the idea of individual human rights and equality. Cultures DO change, and often toward the better. But the code is stuck, unrevisable. (The best that can be done is to "interpret" a previously hard and fast rule into something unrecognizable to its authors.)

The other problem of an "absolute" code is authority. One person's "divine" mandate is another's power play. Who says my code is wrong and yours is the true one? Popular opinion? A respected leader? A writing? These are all human authorities, no matter what is claimed about them. The more externalized the "authority" is, the less flexible it is and the less responsibility its promulgators need to assume for the negative consequences of its enforcement.

If a code is enforced for its own sake, the opportunities for abuse multiply. Didn't Jesus condemn religious authorities with the time to study and practice the minutia of Torah, who used it to oppress the lowly who were too busy trying to make a living? The letter of the law is often carefully crafted to benefit the human composers rather than promote justice.

Relativists are not anarchists. They are aware of history, of what works and what doesn't work. But they are open to new interpretations and formulations of the rules based on what is no longer working and what is now working, to maintain order, reduce suffering and advance the knowledge and common welfare of humanity. Their "authority" comes from ongoing experience. They take responsibility for consequences and work to improve them.

Extreme examples such as suicide bombers are used to derail rational discussion through an emotional appeal. No one but a zealot can defend the tactic. Indeed, only absolutists seem capable of such an act. But amidst the condemnation, the reasons for such tactics are ignored.

Voluntarily killing oneself for the sake of killing one's "enemies" is an act of despair. Despair develops out of a lack of options. The bomber truly believes this is the most positive act he can perform, because every other option is closed. Formal protests are ignored. Appeals to humanity achieve only vague, diplomatic resolutions. Meanwhile, bombs fall, houses are destroyed, people starve, borders are closed, tyrants are supported. The militant knows no other life and sees no other way to get the world's attention. He is like a child acting out to get attention, even if it is punishment. "Civilized" countries condemn the acts, feeling no obligation to consider its motivations, or their contribution to the misery.

That's the fruit of absolutism: mindless discipline without justice. The rules are never questioned because only God is responsible. Relativists are more intent on solving problems than affixing blame.

Answer 4

Well said. Along those same lines, if there is no such thing as a God, who ultimately decides what is right and wrong? Other fallible men and women, right? Who gave them the right to do so? In such a case, the answer usually ends up being some variation of "might makes right." Incidentally, this is the logical consequence of believing in evolution: the survival of the fittest. Worse yet, and I'm sure some of you will try to tell me that he was a Christian, this is exactly what Hitler did with his program of anihilating the Jews, the elderly, non-Aryans, the sick and the mentally retarded. In fact, he was a staunch believer in evolution and was simply carrying out what he believed. Who are we nasty Americans to question his morality?

Answer 5

"Relativists" were people in the early 20th century who understood and promoted Einstein's theory of Special Relativity. I've never heard the term used otherwise. Reading your question, "Relativists" sound like another convenient Christian invention, so they'll have even more people to hate. Until I read your question, I'd never heard of even one person who advocated what you claim. I suspect, like many Christians, you have great difficulty telling the difference between what's real and what's imaginary. Keep it up and you'll find yourself in a state mental hospital with a big strong orderly shoving anti-psychotics down your throat.

Answer 6

But the vast majority of relativists also believe in the concept of the social contract. So your question is null and void.
You knew that, right?

Answer 7

Each society does make it's own rules. That's a fact.
Some societies simply say that their rules are based on what a god told them was right. However, no god ever comes down and actually says these things to any given population. We make our own laws, and we enforce our own laws.

Answer 8

Relativism is a cop out mentality that denies the morale responsibility of self in an ordered society, really it is nothing more than a me mentality and is base selfishness.

Answer 9

But surely it is wrong when one persons belief causes harm to another person if there were no laws then we would exist in an anarchy state and probably would not have evolved to this stage.

Answer 10

I hold no brief for relativism. Moral codes derive from evolution, which applies to societies as well as to species: a society which adheres to a sound moral code will survive preferably to one that does not. Societies generally work better if there is no murder or robbery, so these are properly condemned as moral violations.