Dean's Messages

August 2008 (vol 2., issue 4)
On the Reflections on Relativism and Normative Ethics

Has the world lost its appetite for universal principles? Are there no values we can affirm as norms essential to defining and maintaining our humanity? The postmodern denial of binding values is referred to as the "problematizing of viewpoints," or simply as "relativism."

Relativism has been with us for a long time and can be traced back at least to the celebrated 5th century Sophist, Protagoras who declared, "Man is the measure of all things." By this he meant that the nature of a thing results from the engagement between a perceiving subject and a perceived object. Thus, my perception of a thing and yours cannot rightfully be said to be right or wrong. The problem here is that one cannot without self-contradiction assert that relativism is objectively true and that truth is not objective. In other words, relativists argue that there is nothing universally true except relativism, and so there is no place for the claim of relativism in a world where relativism is true.

The idea of human universals raises questions about the unity of humanity and a single world. If there is an irreducible core to our humanity, there may exist shared values that unite people and cultures. If humanity is many and not one, however, then each one of us may form our own kind of world, and we face the question of how to choose among them? Here the uniqueness and objectivity of truth is challenged. Our moral intuitions may lead us in different directions. Liberalism, tolerance, and pluralism motivate some to find meaning in the diversity of humanity and worldviews. Others are motivated by the equally intelligent desire for a world that is one and for objective, universal values.

History reveals how dominant ideas or intellectual and social movements that began as instruments of liberation, such as Greek metaphysics, Christianity, the rise of the Bourgeoisie, and the Hegelian system have typically over time turned into systems of oppression. Postmodern relativists seek to deconstruct all privileged positions, including absolute truth sought by modernists that tend to serve the powerful, as well as universal standards of rationality and morality. In doing so, postmodernists have wielded their critical theory as a liberating, democratic force "decentering" traditional sources of authority that have blocked minority peoples from participation in the sociopolitical theater. True, but has the liberator become the oppressor?

There is a second self-defeating contradiction inherent in relativism that rises from the absolute belief that we must tolerate everyone everywhere. The rich variety of cultural attitudes toward abortion, gay and lesbian marriage, euthanasia, polygamy, and capital punishment have led some to mistakenly advocate universal acceptance of all beliefs and practices whatsoever in the name of multiculturalism.

Advocates of mulculturalism should not accept all culturally specific ideas, values, and practices but only those that are consistent with the multicultural ideal that we are to respect the rights and dignity of others. The false endorsement of all human diversity becomes problematic when we realize that many cultural worldviews have themselves been exclusive and ethnocentric, so if we endorse them, we endorse intolerance once removed. No one should endorse child abuse, illegal lynching, or female genital mutilation. We are obliged to condemn disrespectful and dehumanizing treatment of people in our and other cultures. Thus, we may still be able to support principles that have a normative reach across cultures. Advocates of moral realism contend that there are indeed moral facts existing independently of our personal preferences that all people of reason and goodwill can recognize and live by. But how does one recognize a moral fact? Moral facts are not accessible through our senses as are physical facts; they are accessible only through reason and common sense. We can observe the physical fact of a tree standing before us, but that 5 plus 5 equals 10, or that two men are brothers-in-law are only accessible through reason or a social construct, no less real or true for being non-material.

Moral realists support a normative ethics and assert that there are beliefs and behaviors that we should condemn because one or the other is inconsistent with the transcultural principle of fairness that is universally true but not necessarily believed to be true by everyone. Thugs and despots who reject the belief that all people should have their human rights respected are wrong and hold a false belief. Even well-intentioned people of reason and common sense who believe in the universal value of fairness demonstrate a moral relativism that is a moral anti-realism when they falsely believe that to respect others means that we can never accept that people may be in the wrong, especially concerning their moral beliefs.

By denying the objectivity of value judgments based on moral facts that can be shared, critiqued, and lived, we invite the chaos of "anything goes"; by denying that people from other cultures can be in error simply because they are from other cultures, we flirt with madness. If nothing is universally true and all values are culturally derived, then freedom, ethics, justice are no better or worse than their alternatives. If we acknowledge universal values will our compliance lead to a clash of absolutisms? Can we achieve an ethic that is both pluralistic and a principled call to a harmonious life that avoids indoctrinating people to do what they're told? Influenced by the dominant Western mindset that privileges quantity over quality, most people today speak of "human values" or "value judgments" as a way of avoiding any ontological commitments to qualities such as right/wrong and good/bad. Such values-talk sidesteps consideration of the reality status of qualities and in doing so, reinforces the belief that all that is not quantifiable results from mere personal preferences or emotional states and is therefore not a viable way of knowing and not related to authentic knowledge. I want to believe that there are qualities so essential to the human spirit that people intentionally live by them, but I don't know. Therefore, my fundamental concern is neither with relativism nor normative ethics since such abstractions can engender as much harm as good but with integral human lives.

Peter M. Rojcewicz, PHD
Dean, School of Holistic Studies