I don't have a horse in this race, Tim, and there is a certain sort of relativism I find worrisome, but I think we often have more to worry about from the absolutists. An ideology that is held to be above question can justify the most barbarous acts.

As others have said, moral relativism is different from relativism about knowledge.

I don't think we refute such relativism, but instead we make it part of a set of agreed practices. What I think of as good moral practice happens within well-founded institutions, robust but flexible, with a strong justice system. That's because I'm a virtue man, and virtues require a sound polis or political structure.

Your list of abhorrent practices is interesting. What exactly is wrong with cannibalism? Why would moral rectitude rest on prohibitions rather than on maxims of good and bad behaviour?

Incorrect? Again confusion, this time between incorrect and wrong. I believe 2+2=5: I'm incorrect and wrong. I believe shiny brass idols are more powerful than silver idols. Wrong, but would you care to demonstrate how I am incorrect? By refutation I mean those persuasive arguments that drive both the relativist and the nihilist from their respective grounds. — tim wood

In common English usage, when we're talking about physical rather than moral matters, incorrect and wrong are synonyms. They mean the same thing, with minor differences in tone. They are interchangeable. You make a distinction between them that I don't understand. I think you are using the words incorrectly. And wrongly. You are guilty of what you have been railing against - you're a linguistic relativist. Things mean what you think they mean, not what they actually mean.

Whatever, please explain the distinction you are making. What is all this about brass and silver idols?

An ideology that is held to be above question can justify the most barbarous acts. — Srap Tasmaner

Are true ideas ideologies? Do we have visual experiences of ideologies or objects? I'd say some ideas are not based on other ideas but brute facts. For example, that there is something. Some ideas are plausibly held above question.

So I answer my own question this way: the refutation of these two (or three, including skepticism) lies in persuasive and well-reasoned argument, not always easy to construct. And once the argument is made, with all allowances for problems in communication, if not effective, then force may be the only recourse. — tim wood

Are you saying you're going to use force against people because they disagree with your philosophy? You talk about absolute moral values, I would have thought freedom of speech and thought would be included on that list.

I'll lay out my thoughts about what human morality represents. I think you will probably call my approach relativistic, but I'm not sure that you will. Here goes - Humans are social animals. We like each other. We live together in groups. I think what we call morality is a set of values built deeply into human nature, biologically and genetically. What are those values? Here is an impressionistic, personal list. Things that make sense to me. It's not intended to be complete, comprehensive, or even correct. I'll settle for plausibility.

[1] Provide a secure place for children
[2] Support families
[3] Protect weaker people from stronger ones
[4] Provide for the well-being of members of the group
[5] Promote the stability of the group
[6] Protect members of the group from hazards from outside

Does this represent any kind of absolute set of values? Well, nothing human is really absolute. I see it like language - it's a physical, biological, and psychological part of human nature. It get's expressed differently in different cultures, different time periods, and under different conditions.

Also - I previously wrote that I don't think any kind of absolute values, moral or otherwise, are possible without an omniscient and omnipotent god. What are your thoughts on that?

"Truth is that which you can rely on"! Do you join me in thinking gurugeorge has the last word on truth? Or do you have something different? — tim wood

I don't want to go getting into a discussion of "truth" here. There are 457 other threads where that has been beaten with a stick. Be that as it may, gurugeorge's discussion is just what I might call relativistic. I'm surprised that you approve.

One thing I find curious is the near universal acceptance of mathematics.

You can, of course, fake data, misrepresent data, tendentiously interpret data, and so on, and you can accuse someone you disagree with of the same, but there's no room for someone to say baldly, "In my view, 3 is greater than 4."

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Do you accept that things are illegal only if some relevant body of people says it is, that different bodies will say different things, and so that something can be illegal in one place but not in another? — michael

Agreed (with some minor reservations). Where are you going, here?

Is it then, the view of the several relativists here that, notwithstanding their private views, cannibalism, genocide, exposing infants, slavery, pedophilia (for a selection) are all ok?
— tim wood

That question doesn't make sense, because whether something is okay or not is a matter of someone's "private" or personal views. "Is this okay aside from anyone's personal views" is a category error. --Terrapin station

And just what are a relativist's criteria if not his or her own opinion? I trust all of us can make compelling argument against the practices listed above. But our relativist says, "Well, that's just your opinion." There seems but three ways to go: 1) adduce a general refutation, 2) adduce specific refutations, 3) if reason fails, then resort to force. The best I can think of with option one is to show that relativism can lead to absurdity - but when was that ever an effective practical argument?

And if you read your post closely, you've said almost nothing about truth.
— tim wood

Nonsense. I explained exactly what it is. Maybe it's that you didn't understand what I wrote? --Terrapin Station.

True and truth are not the same thing. You wrote about true. Give truth a try. Did you see the reference to gurugeorge's post, quoted above in my post?

Agreed (with some minor reservations). Where are you going, here? — tim wood

I'm explaining the principle of relativism. The statement "it is illegal for two women to marry" is true in some places but false in others. This isn't absurd, it doesn't entail that two women marrying isn't illegal (in some places), and one cannot rationally respond to a charge of criminality with "but it's all relative!".

One thing I find curious is the near universal acceptance of mathematics.

You can, of course, fake data, misrepresent data, tendentiously interpret data, and so on, and you can accuse someone you disagree with of the same, but there's no room for someone to say baldly, "In my view, 3 is greater than 4." — Srap Tasmaner

Curious? 4 is defined as being (1) greater than 3. It would be curious not to accept that 4 is greater than 3.

Unless you're curious that there's near universal acceptance of the definitions of terms?

Can we define "truth"?

Also, I am pretty sure that when most people claim to be relativists, the are saying they do not believe in morals or find them to be contextual. They are not claiming truth, as a whole, is relative.

Unless you're curious that there's near universal acceptance of the definitions of terms? — Michael

Um, yeah. Math alone is treated as objective, as objectively true, by all parties to all arguments. That's ever so slightly an overstatement--I'm leaving to one side discussion of the foundations of mathematics. Outside of that vanishingly small exception, nothing even comes close to the universality with which mathematics is accepted.

Not even logic. Natural language is so complex, so much depends on context, on unstated assumptions, that people can argue endlessly whether A follows from B. They argue about the meanings of words. They argue about what words mean "to them," or what they "should" mean. They argue endlessly about what is and what isn't a fact. They argue about right and wrong and how you decide which is which.

But if an argument reaches a point where it's just a question of whether 4 is greater than 3, it's over.

And just what are a relativist's criteria if not his or her own opinion? — tim wood

I am getting a little tired of this misrepresentation of the relativist position. Here's a definition I used in a previous post on this thread - "the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute."

In relation to culture, society, or historical context - not my opinion. To oversimplify - society defines and enforces moral values.

Um, yeah. Math alone is treated as objective, as objectively true, by all parties to all arguments. — Srap Tasmaner

Math is only objectively true as long as it is abstract. When you start filling in the blanks with information from the real world, you get all the uncertainty and fog you do with any human enterprise.

But if an argument reaches a point where it's just a question of whether 4 is greater than 3, it's over. — Srap Tasmaner

4 is greater than 3 by definition, not mathematics.

One thing I find curious is the near universal acceptance of mathematics.

You can, of course, fake data, misrepresent data, tendentiously interpret data, and so on, and you can accuse someone you disagree with of the same, but there's no room for someone to say baldly, "In my view, 3 is greater than 4." — Srap Tasmaner

There are two issues there:

(1) To an extent, especially when we're talking about basic arithmetic, it's simply a factor of how humans (and perhaps persons in general--it might not be limited to humans) tend to think about relations on the most abstract level.

and

(2) Despite (1), I believe that the "near universal acceptance of mathematics" is commonly overstated. When we begin learning mathematics in school, there are quite a few kids who think that various aspects of it don't make a lot of sense. They come up with different answers that they feel are right instead. That disagreement is socialized out of them. And as one progresses in mathematics, more of it doesn't make a lot of sense to many people--things like imaginary numbers, the way that infinities are handled, etc.--I personally think that a lot of advanced mathematics is kind of ridiculous/arbitrary, for example, but by that point you've already been socialized into accepting it as a series of conventions that are followed, and to succeed in it as an academic discipline, you follow along whether you think there are good reasons for it being the way it is or not.

And just what are a relativist's criteria if not his or her own opinion? I trust all of us can make compelling argument against the practices listed above. But our relativist says, "Well, that's just your opinion." There seems but three ways to go: 1) adduce a general refutation, 2) adduce specific refutations, 3) if reason fails, then resort to force. The best I can think of with option one is to show that relativism can lead to absurdity - but when was that ever an effective practical argument? — tim wood

Everyone's criteria for whether some conduct is okay or not is their own opinion--how they feel about various types of conduct, whether following some conduct or not would result in a scenario that they feel positive about or not, and so on.

"Compelling arguments" in this milieu have to rest on and appeal to how individuals feel. (And part of that can be how they feel about functioning as social outliers or not--there is a whole complex of things involved.)

I don't really get what you have in mind with "adduce a general refutation" and "adduce specific refutations." You'd have to explain that in more detail.

What's absurd is relative, too, by the way.

True and truth are not the same thing. — tim wood

The words are simply grammatical permutations. "That's the truth"="You've stated something that is true." "Truth-value"="the assignment of 'true' and 'false' to propositions" etc.

Yes, I saw the reference to gurugeorge's post. I could pick it apart if you like, but I'd rather have a more direct conversation with you than argue about someone else's comments.

I am getting a little tired of this misrepresentation of the relativist position. Here's a definition I used in a previous post on this thread - "the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute."

In relation to culture, society, or historical context - not my opinion. To oversimplify - society defines and enforces moral values. — T Clark

It's not a strawman applied to me, and I disagree with framing morality as something cultural. Cultures do not think. They don't have views about conduct. Individuals do. Individuals interacting make up cultures, but the culture itself doesn't amount to something more than those individuals interacting and having the views they do. I'm a relativist where I believe that morals, truth, etc. are relative to individuals.

It's not a strawman applied to me, and I disagree with framing morality as something cultural. Cultures do not think. They don't have views about conduct. Individuals do. — Terrapin Station

You and I are using the word "relativism" differently. As is my wont, I've gone to the internet and looked up five definitions

[1] 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.
[2]The doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.
[3] Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid, and that all truth is relative to the individual.
[4] The relativist about a given domain, D, purports to have discovered that the truths of D involve an unexpected relation to a parameter - holy crap. What the ding dong does that mean.
[5] Ethical relativism represents the position that there are no moral absolutes, no moral right or wrong. This philosophy allows people to mutate ethically as the culture, knowledge, and technology change in society.

That doesn't really help much. The definitions are not consistent. Just for discussion's sake, let's use this definition - "The doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute." Does that position represent relativism to you? If not, what is it? Do you reject it in the same manner and for the same reasons you do what you have been calling "relativism."

That no one can provide a universally acceptable definition of relativism (or any concept) should speak loudly.

I don't like the social/cultural emphasis of that.

We can certainly say that relative to one society something is legal whereas relative to another society it's not, and so on, but the reason for that is the individuals in that society and the way they're interacting. Morals (and other things) and ultimately relative to individuals.

I don't like the social/cultural emphasis of that.

We can certainly say that relative to one society something is legal whereas relative to another society it's not, and so on, but the reason for that is the individuals in that society and the way they're interacting. Morals (and other things) and ultimately relative to individuals. — Terrapin Station

I described a philosophical approach - "The doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute." Whether or not you like it, is it relativism? If not, what is it? It is clearly not absolutism.

I described a philosophical approach - "The doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute." Is that relativism? If not, what is it? It is clearly not absolutism. — T Clark

Yeah, that's a type of relativism.

I was just saying that as a relativist myself, I don't like the emphasis on culture/society in that approach. I think it stresses norms/conformity (within cultures) too much and devalues individuals, when cultures/society are just collections of individuals and their interactions, their views, etc.

I was just saying that as a relativist myself, I don't like the emphasis on culture/society in that approach. I think it stresses norms/conformity (within cultures) too much and devalues individuals, when cultures/society are just collections of individuals and their interactions, their views, etc. — Terrapin Station

I like the emphasis on cultural and societal context. I think it makes a relativist position more rigorous and more consistent with human nature. Both your approach and mine seem consistent with the imprecise definition of the word.

4 is greater than 3 by definition, not mathematics. — T Clark

One of us is missing the point, maybe it's me. We're exposed to lots of definitions, and people argue about those definitions, except when it comes to mathematics.

That disagreement is socialized out of them. — Terrapin Station

That may be. School and home try to socialize kids in all sorts of ways, but this is the only one that sticks universally, so far as I can tell.

it's simply a factor of how humans (and perhaps persons in general--it might not be limited to humans) tend to think about relations on the most abstract level. — Terrapin Station

That also may be.

I have no opinion to share at the moment on why it is so. My point is only what I said: mathematics holds a unique position.

If President Trump wants to claim that the crowd at his inauguration was bigger than the crowd at President Obama's, he can't just say, "I think 317,000 is more than 513,000." He has to say that the estimates of attendance at each event were wrong. Not only is that a good strategy, it's the only strategy because everyone on earth agrees that 513,000 > 317,000.

I brought it up because this thread was supposed to be about what happens when relativists and non-relativists argue. Well, one of the things that happens is that they agree on basic mathematics. They may disagree on where the numbers come from and what they mean. That might be ever so important to the argument. Not denying any of that.

@tim wood seems worried that there is no absolute truth that everyone accepts, and that not everyone even agrees there is such a thing. I'll grant that it's not what he wanted, but mathematics appears to me to enjoy universal acceptance.

Look at the way you guys are arguing over the definition of "relativism," and compare that to your behavior when it comes to math. Suppose you were having this argument over dinner and then split the check. It might take a few tries, but you would agree on an answer within minutes, after arguing for hours about the definition of a single word.

Look at the way you guys are arguing over the definition of "relativism," and compare that to your behavior when it comes to math. Suppose you were having this argument over dinner and then split the check. It might take a few tries, but you would agree on an answer within minutes, after arguing for hours about the definition of a single word. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, we could split the bill with few issues. We could just as easily agree that it was morally or ethically wrong when Tim Wood snuck off without paying. Absolutism vs. relativism doesn't really make much a difference on a day to day basis.

I don't have a horse in this race, Tim, and there is a certain sort of relativism I find worrisome, but I think we often have more to worry about from the absolutists. An ideology that is held to be above question can justify the most barbarous acts.

I agree. But it's an interesting point. Both relativism and absolutism become absurd if pressed too far. But it seems one must be right and the other wrong, doesn't it? If both of these are inherently flawed (as I think they are), then what is the secure ground? Reasonableness? Do we judge the reasonable by reasonable standards?

Maybe we find a clue in the first sentence of Kant's Groundwork..., "Nothing in the world—or out of it!—can possibly be conceived that could be called ‘good’ without qualification except a GOOD WILL."

The proof lies within the concept itself. And the same for reasonableness. Of course reasonableness itself is not prescriptive; the process is to judge the argument, and then the content of the argument. But both the good will and reasonableness have the special quality they can self-prove without becoming absurd. Neither relativism nor absolutism possess this quality.

So it seems the defense against relativism lies in reason.

"Nothing in the world—or out of it!—can possibly be conceived that could be called ‘good’ without qualification except a GOOD WILL."

The proof lies within the concept itself. And the same for reasonableness. Of course reasonableness itself is not prescriptive; the process is to judge the argument, and then the content of the argument. But both the good will and reasonableness have the special quality they can self-prove without becoming absurd. — tim wood

That all seems pretty absurd--and pretty arbitrary and kind of word salady--to me.