- Hello, am I there?
Okay.
Well, I wanted to say a few words about relativism
and the difference between global relativism
and cultural relativism.
I even put together a few notes
to make sure that I will indeed say a few words
rather than fill up the whole hour.
Right, so the kind of relativism we will be concerned with
is school of relativism about truth.
And the basic idea here is that truth is relative
to the beliefs of an individual or a group of individuals
and there are no absolute or objective truths.
So basically the idea is that the truth
is a matter of belief and there are no objective truths.
So what are objective truths?
Well, objective truths apply to everyone
independently of what they happen to believe.
So suppose it's an objective truth
that the Earth is spherical.
Right, so even if everyone at some point
believed that Earth is flat,
and that was a commonly accepted belief in ancient Greece,
the idea still is that this doesn't make it true
that the Earth is flat.
If it's an absolute truth or objective truth
that the Earth is spherical
then those who believe that the Earth is flat
are simply mistaken, their belief is false.
And that's what some people have in mind
when they speak about facts, right?
They have in mind objective truth.
So when they say it's a fact that
it means that it's objectively true that.
And some people express the idea
that there are objective truths by saying
that look, the truth is out there,
even if we do not know or do not yet know what it is.
So we do not yet know what cures cancer
or how did the consciousness emerge,
but the scientists studying these questions,
they still assume that there are objective answers
to these questions,
there are objective truths out there
even if at this point we do not yet know what they are.
Right.
And now relativism, as we saw,
denies that there are objective truths,
and global relativism, as the name indicates,
maintains that all truths are relative
and there are no objective truths whatsoever.
So it's global in this sense.
And secondly, it maintains that all truths
are relative to the individual who believes them.
So it relativizes the truth to an individual.
And you know, when philosophers speak of beliefs here
they do not have in mind
our firmest convictions or opinions,
but we have a belief any time
we take the world to be in a certain way
or any time we think that something is the case.
So for example, if I take it to be the case
or if I take the Earth to be flat
and you take it to be spherical,
then according to global relativism,
the Earth truly is flat for me and spherical for you.
So we are both right.
My belief is true for me, your belief is true for you,
and that's the only truth there is.
So there is no objective truth, no fact of the matter
as to whether the Earth is spherical or flat.
The Earth really is for someone
the way this person takes it to be.
And it's this global nature
that makes global relativism a rather radical view,
because we might agree that there are some relative truths,
and maybe matters of taste are paradigmatic examples here.
So if we're sitting in a restaurant together and eat salmon
and if I find the salmon to be tasty
and you find it to be untasty,
then in this case we might perhaps agree
that we are both equally correct.
There is no objective truth,
no objective answer to the question,
is salmon really tasty or not?
We want to say that here the truth
is relative to what the individual believes.
On the other hand, however,
we ordinarily suppose that there are at least
some objective truths, right?
Usually scientific truths and mathematical truths
are paradigmatic examples of objective truths,
but a global relativist denies
that there are any objective truths.
What we ordinarily take to be objective truths
are simply personal beliefs
that are true just for this person.
And that's what makes it also very difficult
to argue with the global relativist.
Whenever you try to give them an example
of an objective belief or objective truth,
they will counter this by saying
that this belief is just true for you,
it's your belief and just true for you.
So for example, suppose that you believed that Estonia
is a fictional country.
That was your belief.
And then you met a professor from Estonia
and you found out that Estonia
is in fact a country in Northern Europe.
And in light of this, so you changed your belief
and you came to think that your initial belief was false
and your current belief is true,
and you offer this as an example of an objective truth.
It's objectively true, it's a fact that Estonia
is in Northern Europe, right?
But the global relativist could easily respond that,
well, your initial belief was true for you
when you believed it
and your current belief is true for you
as long as you believe that.
So you certainly changed your beliefs,
you had different beliefs,
but it's not the case that one was false and the other true.
Both beliefs were true for you
as long as you had these beliefs,
and that's the only truth there is, right?
Indeed, soon you might meet someone,
say a skillful rhetorician who convinces you
that Estonia is a country in Asia,
so you come to believe that Estonia is in Asia.
And the relativist would say that,
again, this belief is true for you
as long as you believe it.
So truth is relative to what an individual believes
and there are no objective truths.
Well, you can perhaps challenge
the plausibility of this position
by considering what would follow from this position.
So what would the world look if global relativism were true?
What are some of the implications
or consequences of this view?
And the idea here is that if these consequences
are somehow problematic or implausible,
then that's a reason for you
to think that this position itself
is somewhat problematic or implausible.
Right, so one obvious implication of global relativism
is that the individual can never be mistaken about anything.
How convenient is that?
So all of our beliefs are true for us
and that's the only truth there is,
so we cannot have false beliefs.
And if that's the case,
then many of the things we say and do
become either impossible or kind of pointless.
For example, if we all know the truth,
we are never mistaken,
then what's the point of say, going to school,
paying all this money for someone to teach us,
or what's the point of seeing a doctor
or consulting with any expert really?
Furthermore, it seems that we couldn't really
have any disagreements over anything really,
because it seems that when we disagree,
we disagree over who is right and who is wrong,
whose belief is true and whose is false.
But if all beliefs are true for the person who has them
and that's the only truth there is
then, well, what's the point of disagreeing?
I mean, there's nothing to disagree over.
So the possibility of disagreement
in a sense assumes the possibility of falsehood.
If all beliefs are true
then there is nothing we could disagree over.
So as relativists, we could have different beliefs.
My belief might be different from yours,
but all these beliefs are equally true
to the person who has them.
And if you think of disagreements
as a starting point for further discussion,
then these discussions become also somewhat pointless.
I mean, what's the point of trying to find out the truth
if truth is already given to us in our beliefs?
And one of the most famous objections to global relativism
is that global relativism is self-refuting.
So it's internally contradictory,
such that if it's true, it's false.
And one of your tasks is to figure out
what this objection really amounts to.
But just to get you going, think about it like that.
So relativism or global relativism
is often put forth as a position
that there are no objective truths.
And think about it,
isn't there something paradoxical
about making this claim like this, right?
Right, so global relativism is relativism about all truths,
and that's partly what makes it
a little bit radical and implausible,
but you can also be a relativist about some truths.
And the most influential restricted version of relativism
is moral relativism,
according to which there are no objective truths
about what's morally right or morally wrong.
And the most influential version of moral relativism
is cultural relativism,
according to which moral truths
are relative to the beliefs of a culture.
So whatever a culture believes
to be morally right or morally wrong
is right or wrong for them
and there are no objective truths in morality.
So cultural relativism differs
from global relativism in these two ways.
First, it's not the relativism about all truth
but about moral truth,
and secondly does not relativize truth to the individual
but to a group of individuals, so a culture or society.
And cultural relativism, as we understand it
and as the authors we will read understand it,
starts with the observation that different cultures
have different moral beliefs and practices
and infers from this that there are no objective truths
in morality at all.
And sometimes I think people use the term
cultural relativism in a weaker way
simply to indicate that different cultures
have different moral beliefs.
But this observation by itself
doesn't rule out objective truth,
because you might agree that different cultures
have different moral beliefs,
that seems obvious,
but still maintain that some of these beliefs
are true and others false.
So some cultures get it right, as it were,
and others are mistaken.
So what we mean by cultural relativism
is this more radical view,
namely that these practices and beliefs
are true relative to a culture,
so all cultures are equally correct in their beliefs
and there are no objective truths in morality.
And the very attractive feature of cultural relativism,
and I think that helps to explain why it's so influential,
is that it appears to promote tolerance
towards other cultures.
So if all cultures are equally correct
in their moral beliefs,
then we cannot really or should not really judge
the beliefs and practices of other cultures
or impose our system of beliefs on them,
and many people think that's a good thing.
And this might well be a common response
to the history of Western colonialism and imperialism.
I mean, we have wiped out entire nations and civilizations
and justified it on moral grounds.
But when we look at the actual results of colonialism,
we might feel that when Western nations
decide to intervene in the affairs of other countries,
well, on the grounds that they disapprove
some of their moral practices,
then the results are often much worse
than the abuses they aim to stop.
And in any case, the relativist could ask,
well who are we to judge?
I mean, what gives us the right to say
that our morality is better?
So cultural relativism nowadays
is often justified in the name of tolerance.
And as we will see,
this kind of justification is at the same time problematic.
It's not obvious how to make sense of this idea of tolerance
within the framework of cultural relativism,
and one of your tasks is to figure out why this is so.
So now you should start reading
the material about global relativism
and then move on to cultural relativism
as Wong and Rachels discuss it.
You should try to find answers to study questions
and then boast your answers
to three specified questions on Yellowdig
and then you should start working on your first paper
which is about cultural relativism.
And I look forward to discussing your answers on Yellowdig.