Relativism is identified as the thesis that all points of view are equally valid. In ethics, this amounts to saying that all moralities are equally good, equally true or equally possible. Although there are multiple types of relativism, all of them assert on two bases:
1) They all assert that one thing (moral values, beauty, knowledge, taste, or meaning) is relative to some particular standpoint (the individual subject, a culture, an era, a language, or a conceptual scheme).
2) They all deny that any standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.
It also has a saying which describes it shortly and superficially: "Everything is relative, including relativism itself.", basically stating that nothing is absolute but it might be absolute, at the same time.
Relativism has caused and still attracts much heat from critics which usually dismiss it, dubbing it incoherent simply for the fact that it states the validity is false. Because relativism is associated with such views, few philosophers have dubbed themselves relativists, although there have been many who have been accused of being relativists, such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, Peter Winch, Thomas Kuhn, and so on.
How controversial, and how coherent, these forms of relativism are will obviously vary according to what is being relativized to what, and in what manner.
For an absolute relativist, there is no Good and Evil as the perception is relative to the person and situation. There is no Wrong or Right. An so on.
Although one might be a relativist without being an absolute relativist, there are many types of relativism.
Is everthing truly relative, or does everything have an absolute answer? Or maybe, can relativism and absolutism both be true?
How strongly do you agree, or disagree, with the relativist standpoint?
Post your opinion. Debate.
Today's Toppers
3Likes
Relativism
