Ethics

I have recently heared the following expression: "If someone tells you at dinner that he is a radical relativist, then you must count your cutlery after he has left." What is the basis for mistrust of people holding relativistic views?

Comments

I guess what's behind the expression is the idea that a "radical relativist" might believe that what's good/right/obligatory for you is not good/right/obligatory for him/her. So, from the fact that you would regard it as bad to steal someone else's cutlery, you have no reason to think that the "radical relativist" would think it was bad to do so--and so such a person might walk off with yours!

As a matter of fact, I am inclined to think that most who like to pose as "radical relativists" are doing just that--only posing. As soon as they perceive that they are victimized, just watch them quite deftly (and earnestly) invoking all the appropriate (absolutist) moral invective!

I'm not actually recommending this, but one way to test whether someone is really the "radical relativist" they claim to be is simply to respond by whacking them upside the head. Doing so would be wrong (absolutely!), but I would lay odds that the fiction of their pose would be quickly exposed. But really, in their view, other than their opinion (and why should that matter to me???) what could be wrong with whacking a relativist, or even with making relativist-whacking into a professional sport?

Some views are too stupid for even the stupidest people to be able to affirm in their silly lives. "Radical relativism" is one of them.

I suppose it all depends on precisely what radical relativism is supposed to be. Let's assume that there is such a view, and that it is a coherent and consistent view at that. (I suspect that this assumption is entirely unfounded, but that's besides the point of your question.)

Now, given this assumption, I'm not sure it makes sense to trust moral relativists with your cutlery any less than you trust moral absolutists. Let's imagine a moral relativist named Ray. On at least one understanding of relativism, the fact that Ray is a moral relativist says nothing at all about the content of his moral views. Ray can think that it's wrong to steal just as you and I do. What makes Ray a relativist is that he also happens to believe that the wrongness of stealing is somehow relative to himself, to his audience, or to his culture. And so if a guest at a dinner party announces that he's a relativist, you shouldn't assume that his morals are any different from yours. Moreover, if another guest at your dinner party--let's call her Anne--proclaims that she's a moral absolutist, don't assume that your cutlery (or your life) is secure. After all, even the most dogmatic moral absolutist can firmly believe that theft (or murder) is perfectly acceptable. It seems that, contrary to the expression you recently heard, the fact that someone is a moral relativist is no more of a reason to suspect him than the fact that Anne is an absolutist is a reason to trust her.

Read another response by Nicholas D. Smith, Matthew Silverstein

Read another response about Ethics