IS RADICAL RELATIVISM DEFENSIBLE?

Is radical relativism defensible?

Is radical relativism defensible?

Relativism is a theory that proposes to explain beliefs by claiming that judgments of truth and falsity are not simply influenced by, but are entirely relative to, the temporal and spatial circumstances of those making the judgements.

Although the term dates from the 19th century, the doctrine has much older roots. The father of relativism is often thought to be Protagoras (485 b.c.-11 b.c.), although he may have maintained only the modest thesis that morality is not immutable, but changes along with institutions. If there was a relativist movement, Sextus Empiricus (third to second century b.c.) would more obviously be its founder; he counseled suspension of judgment in the face of an evident contradiction in behavior or ideas. Montaigne (1533-92), Hume (1711-76), and Nietzsche are in various ways heirs to this tradition, the last-named even augmenting it by his attempted "genealogy of morals (Guthrie, 1971)."

Relativism takes different forms depending on three factors: the scope it is alleged to have; the nature of the circumstances held to be crucial in generating various beliefs; and the philosophical presuppositions it may involve. In the first place, relativism may be global or partial, but if it is applied to all judgments of truth it obviously destroys itself, which hardly makes it plausible. More usually, therefore, it is a thesis about a specific domain, such as science, religion, or morality. Second, there are different forms of relativism, depending on whether one sees the reasons for divergences of opinion in terms of culture, means of production, historical period, or gender. Finally, relativism, whether global or limited, may be either epistemological or metaphysical. It may, for example, be limited to asserting that in relation to a specified domain, we have no means of establishing truth or falsity; but it may go further and claim that this impossibility is explained by the fact that there is no truth of the matter at stake. This radical thesis seems to be an element in some versions of postmodernism and is maintained, for example, by Richard Rorty (Krauz & Meiland, 1982).

Although relativism in relation to moral beliefs therefore has a long history behind it, its status as a good explanation of moral disagreement within and between different societies is open to question. Some critics doubt the existence of fundamental disagreements about moral judgments among human beings: after all, the most radical differences of practice can arise from common moral values. Even where the existence of deep disagreements is admitted, and when these disagreements are explained by reference to social or historical factors, it remains to be shown whether it is impossible to overcome them by rational deliberation. Without that, such disagreements merely show that there is indeed a plurality of moral views. However, to establish this impossibility is by no means a straightforward matter, and "antifoundationalists" such as Alasdair MacIntyre have contended that relativism is justified only if one postulates standards of rationality that no beliefs could ...