Over the centuries
of human experience, there are few things that don’t change. Nations rise and
fall, continents shift, culture changes and evolves. One thing, however, that
never changes, no matter how long humans have existed on earth, is that they
disagree with each other. Every human has his own worldview, the way he sees
the world, and it contradicts everyone else’s. Many ideological conflicts,
including most of the current controversial issues, can be traced back to one
central disagreement: the definition of truth. More specifically, whether truth
is absolute or relative, whether it changes or not; this is the issue that has
haunted humanity for millennia.
Truth, as defined
by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is “the real facts about something”
(Merriam). The first and more traditional school of thought is that truth
doesn’t change, and that it is absolute. Subscribers to this school believe that
right and wrong do not change from person to person, and that the truth is the
truth. The second school is made up of proponents of relative truth, who
believe that truth differs from person to person. The conflict between these
thoughts has existed for centuries, and it isn’t likely to go away anytime
soon. In the modern context, “tolerance” has become a rampant ideal as a
substitute for equality. The problem with tolerance is that it is being taken
into the realm of truth. The main conflict lies in defining what exactly
tolerance is. A believer in absolute truth will say that tolerance is
respecting another’s views, while a relativist will tell you that all views are
equal. Despite the recent popularity of relativism, various logical arguments
exist that point towards the existence of absolute truth and morality being,
well, true.
The first case
against relativism can be found in the argument itself. If any sort of debate
is established between the two variants of truth, then relative truth has
already conceded the fact that it is possible, even necessary, to absolutely
determine which brand of truth is the “true” one. This coincides with the argument
often made in this discussion “there are no absolute truths,” which is an
absolute statement, thereby nullifying itself. It happens over and over again;
“When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict
themselves” (Absolute). This is the most commonly known fallacy in relativism,
but it itself does not simply end the argument, as the idea of relativism still
persists.
A second problem
arises when considering relativism in the context of morality – a context most
often used today. The relativist view is that different kinds of morality exist,
and that as long as each person follows their own morality, with the only rule
being not to interfere with another’s morality, then everything is going
morally well. In reality, this is moral stagnation. The main argument for moral
relativism is that “ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or
wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual
choice” (Moral). By this very same token, however, it is a logical fallacy for
two conflicting worldviews to be correct. To say that two different moral views
are both right is impossible, as they could be (and often are) open
contradictions. This is the very point that relativists make, but they do not
acknowledge that this fact leads to the nonexistence of morality as a whole.
Imagine a
primitive tribe in some unknown region of the world. According to this
particular tribes’ culture, it is morally right for a human to murder another
human in cold blood. Somewhere else, a man branded with a mental disorder finds
within himself the moral urge to kill. We would say that killing is morally
wrong, but if these people truly believe it is right, then who are we to deny
that? No, we would have to stop them, because they are interfering with other
people’s moralities. And the second you make an absolute statement that murder
is wrong, you have just put one view over another, collapsing the entire basis
for relativism.
If relativism is
true, then that means right and wrong don’t truly exist, as they are only
perceived in the minds of people. If that is true, then there is no reason for order
in the world. Anarchy would be fine! Oppression, stealing, lying, murder, all
of these things would be acceptable, just because that is how morality works.
Again, this does not make sense in any worldview. Relativism cannot be true,
because it would defy all sense of morality.
As a side note,
have you ever wondered how morality exists? How do we even have a sense of
right and wrong? If we didn’t, after all, anarchy would indeed reign. No,
morality is ingrained into us as humans for some reason. We do have a moral
compass, that small feeling one gets when contemplating a wrong action. This
compass points to at least some standard of absolute truth, which again shows
that morality does indeed exist. CS Lewis puts it best in his book Mere Christianity:
But how had I
gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless
he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with
when I called it unjust… If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never
have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the
universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was
dark. Dark would be without meaning.
Now, the argument
can be made that relative truth and absolute truth both exist in different
contexts. Perhaps it is absolutely right that murder is wrong, but being an
alcoholic is more relative. This presents a new problem: finding the line.
Where does one draw the line between an absolute wrong and a relative one? You
could say it’s up to interpretation, but that’s just circling back to
relativism. The line can’t be relative, and if it’s absolute, that just more
strongly enforces the importance of absolute truth.
On the issue of
tolerance, relativism holds up no better. Relativists make the mistake of
incorrectly defining tolerance as accepting all beliefs as true, where
tolerance is really just respect. It is right to respect others, but the
relativist view “eschews any evaluation of other cultures’ norms in the name of
tolerance” (Westacott). This is an insult to those cultures. Remember the
murderous tribe mentioned earlier? If no one cares to help them learn what is
right, then they will keep killing each other until there are none left. If no
one stood up and said slavery was morally wrong, it would still persist to
today. Tolerance also seems to conveniently leave out proponents of absolute
truth. Any view is acceptable except for one that contradicts relativism, which
is a contradiction in itself.
Truth doesn’t
change, and neither does morality. By their very definitions, if they changed,
they would cease to exist. Truth that isn’t true is opinion, and morals that
aren’t absolute morals have no value. If we lived in a world where these two
didn’t exist, there would be no point to anything we do. Nothing would make
sense, and anyone could do anything they wanted. Relativism and tolerance, while
good ideas, have been taken too far, and in their acceptance are now
threatening to destroy any kind of society. They are an insult to culture and
morals, and acceptance of anything is what leads to an anarchistic world.
Works Cited
"Absolute
Truth." AllAboutPhilosophy.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.
Lewis, C. F. M.
Mere Christianity. Glasgow: Fount Paperbacks, 1977. Print.
Merriam-Webster.
Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.
"Moral
Relativism." Moral Relativism. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.
Westacott, Emrys.
"Moral Relativism." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., n.d.
Web. 9 Apr. 2015.