The Case for Relativism

From an ethical standpoint, relativism is the concept that right and wrong, true and false are determined entirely from an individuals belief system. The development of that belief system may come from family, social groups, cities as a whole, nations, and possibly the world at large. Essentially, if a person were raised in a culture where burning the dead is an important act in ushering that person into the afterlife, relatively speaking, it is a moral act. On the other hand, if burning the dead is considered sacrilege, this would be considered an immoral act. So how can one group do something that is considered moral, while the same act is immoral within another circle? The question that ultimately arises is thus: Is there an absolute right and wrong on any issue? Does "truth," as we commonly refer to it exist?

The answer is hard to determine. For example, there are taboos against incest that are fairly universal, though reasonings differ. From an evolutionary standpoint, at some time in our distant past, our ancestors discovered that mating among siblings, parents, cousins, etc..., left the offspring likely of poor constitution. In order to prevent this from occurring, the act of familial coupling was looked upon as a taboo. The interesting thing is that the taboo in one culture may be entirely different than another, though the end result is the same.

For instance, in certain societies, the taboo is more of a dutiful act than a means of increasing the health of offspring. In her research of the Arapesh, famed anthropologist Margaret Mead discovered that the reason for the taboo on incest was based on sustainability of the community. When pressed for a concrete reason for this taboo, an Arapesh man responded as follows:

"What, you would like to marry your sister? What is the matter with you anyway? Don't you want a brother-in-law? Don't you realize that if you marry another man's sister and another man marries your sister, you will have at least two brothers-in-law, while if you marry your own sister you will have none? With whom will you hunt, with whom will you garden, who will you visit?"

Back to relativism. While both avoidances of incest are moral and right in each society, the reasoning for the taboo differs. Conversely, in certain societies, past and present, incest is considered to be a moral act that continues the bloodline of a ruling or monarchical class. While most people in the western world would consider incest wrong, can they really say that it is wrong for others to view it as a moral or ethical act? If this action props up the culture and history of such a kingdom, should that be considered a good thing?

Relativism is limiting, however, which may be considered the only way for it to be a valid ethical concept. In every society in the world, it is considered unethical and unjust to take the life of another without a valid concern for one's own safety and the safety of their loved ones. Even in totalitarian societies where state executions are doled out for what the Western would consider to be minor infractions of statute, there exist social constructs which make it ethical in that society to perform the act of execution. While you and I would consider the removal of a person's hand by way of blade as punishment for stealing a piece of fruit to be absolutely reprehensible; it is ethical and common among certain nations.

So, you say potato, I say potáto? Not quite. The point is thus: there is no absolute truth in the world. While, in order to protect our own psychological health, we assign truth values to certain acts, conditions, or states of being; it is impossible to say that there is a truth that is universal. While many people would argue, the concept can be broken down to the ridiculous.

Let's take three people into account, myself, person A and person B. The question is thus: Do you like donuts? Person A says Yes. Well, I hate them, and the truth to me is that they are disgusting. Person B does not like donuts either. So we have one person who believes donuts to be delicious, and two people who believe them to be unappetizing. Because there are two against pastries and one for pastries, do we, because we are greater in number have a monopoly on truth? Absolutely not. My truth is no more valid than the truth of another.

Of course there are always exceptions to any rule, and a number of you will say, "Well what about this or that horrible act that occurs in such and such a place?" If one avoids playing devil's advocate the concept is fairly simple to understand. The hard part that we have, being mostly ego-centric people, is that we simply cannot believe anyone else to be right if they disagree with us. Step out of your own shoes, so to speak, and realize that truth is everywhere, fluid, and dynamic, and changes within the same culture throughout history. Understand that today's truth could very likely be tomorrow's falsehood.