Does "dictatorship of relativism" exist?

[DanS]

Well, of course silly. That was his job.

[Dinner]

Then he should simply say that rather then trying to claim there are hordes of people trying to convince John Q Public to be a moral relativist.

This isn't about other people saying there are no values in the world. It's about people disagreeing upon which values are best. He's distorting what people are saying.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't know anyone who believes all moral values are equal. I've never heard anyone advocate that idea either other then one far out poster here at poly.

Who's that?

Many posters on these boards (well, many being like 10, abouts) have articulated the idea that all moral values are inherantly equal. That doesn't preclude each individual from structuring moral values according to his own whims... the moral relativist just realizes that the hierachy is based on personal preference and not any absolute fact.

And stuff.

[Dracon II]

Pure relativism is essentially an abstract concept. In real life, people who reject the need for and the validity of a governing communitarian principle are sociopathic.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Pure relativism is essentially an abstract concept.

Which is what most people who argue against relativists on this board don't understand. Even after it is pointed out that relativists may have their own beliefs on which morality is better, as long as they realize that, in the abstract, no moral principal is inherantly better than any other.

Sometimes I wonder about those who argue against relativists and think it is an "AH HA" moment when one says he, personally, prefers one form of morality to another... even after the explaination that that is based mostly on society and environmental reason.

[Bill3000]

I don't know anyone who believes all moral values are equal. I've never heard anyone advocate that idea either other then one far out poster here at poly. I think what he's rail against is everyone who doesn't agree with his values.

I do, and I have created a fictional religion (Rather, my spiritual beliefs combined with fiction) based on this.


Moral relativism can still be considered a truth without having to be believed in, you know. Even if moral relativism is true (Which I believe is so), that doesn't prevent people from being intolerant, or force people to become tolerant. Indeed my own beliefs say that you should be what you are, rather than try to accept everyone's own beliefs.

Thus it is a compromise between relativism and absolutism. A cop out? Maybe, but I believe that moral corruption is a far worse sin than straying from moral absolutism (the normal definition of sin)

[Seeker]

WTF does a 'dictatorship' of relativism look like?

The terrible oppression of not being able to oppress and indoctrinate?

Cry me a river.

I think that crying about a 'Dictatorship' from someone who should know better just caused thousands of reasonable people around the world to phone up their 'gives a ****' repairman and tell him to get off his ass.

[Dracon II]

A relativist society, in reality, would certainly be predisposed to dictatorship.

Liberal Democratic societies are democratic not merely because they are tolerant of diverse cultures, classes, individuals and religions, but because they enshrine the rights and responsibilities of these elements constitutionally (in the UK we can assume tradition, convention and the body of law to be a constitution). The constitution thus constitutes a non-relative value that protects the relativity of other values, provided they don't conflict with the values constitutionally enshrined. Thus final power and authority rest in the constitution as an arbiter, or a gold standard. So to say that liberal-democratic societies are relativistic is misguided.

A relativistic society, in the absence of an overriding principle or constitution, would resemble Thraymachus' conception of justice; being that justice is the "will of the strongest". Relativism does not prevent intolerance, it lends heart to naked power, which practically becomes the sole determinant of value. We could argue of course, that this principle exists regardless of whether we take on a relativist point of view... which I guess is a tragic conundrum.

[Flip McWho]

Wouldn't moral relativism result in a form of anarchism considering that it means that each persons morality is valid?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Seeker
WTF does a 'dictatorship' of relativism look like?

Like the Catholic Church deliberately shielding fugitives from justice after WWII- and setting them up with retirement homes in French monasteries.

Or concealing the crimes of child-sex abusers from the civil authorities, and worse- allowing them to move from one parish to another and continue to molest children.


And hiding those wanted in connection with war crimes and crimes against humanity in Rwanda and Burundi.

Because of course, Holy Mother Church knows best- paedophilia and genocide and torture are all relative, when the perpetrators are members of the Croatian Ustasha, Vichy Regime, Nazi Party or Rwandan priests and nuns.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A relativistic society, in the absence of an overriding principle or constitution, would resemble Thraymachus' conception of justice; being that justice is the "will of the strongest".

Except for the fact that the "will of the strongest" is how things work in non relativistic societies today... or do you think that minorities have any power beyond what the power brokers have granted them so they don't 'rock the boat'?

[BeBMan]

Hm, so would you say we live in relativistic societies? I agree with Dracon insofar that even "open" societies have certain general, non-relativistic principles in form of a constitution or something similar.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by BeBro
Hm, so would you say we live in relativistic societies? I agree with Dracon insofar that even "open" societies have certain general, non-relativistic principles in form of a constitution or something similar.

No. That's my point. Even in these non-relativist societies the will of the stronger wins out. For all the talk about principles... power wins. Absolute morality, btw, has been the greater perpetuater of the will of the stronger. After all, who writes the absolute morality?

Though plenty of societies realize some of this and have moved more relativistically over the last century.

[Bereta_Eder]

Relativism maybe one of the few negatives of postmodernism. But compared to the children of modernism (nazism, islamic fudnamentalism, free markets) it's not such a big negative..

[Dracon II]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Except for the fact that the "will of the strongest" is how things work in non relativistic societies today... or do you think that minorities have any power beyond what the power brokers have granted them so they don't 'rock the boat'?

I refer to this:

We could argue of course, that this principle exists regardless of whether we take on a relativist point of view... which I guess is a tragic conundrum.

Tragic in that we have to choose between beautiful illusion and naked reality.