Topics Philosophers

Question I am beginning to think this question is a big question mark not only to me, but to some of you Sirs as well--as I have submitted it a couple of times now, and it hasn't even been posted. But let me restate it. A position which holds that there are no absolutes (by which I refer to something akin to the noumena, in Kantian terms) is necessarily wrong. Such position could in fact be synthesized as follows: "I believe there are no absolutes." But such a claim is an absolute in itself. Thus, absolutes must exist. The alternative would be something like "I believe there might not be absolutes". Which nonetheless leaves room for the possibility of the existence of absolutes. Hence, absolutes can, indeed, exist. How do we, as "relativists", argue against the claim that seems to follow logically from what was said--and, that is, that "absolutes necessarily exist"? Thanks...

Accepted:
June 27, 2006

Comments

This is a version of a familiar argument against radical relativism. As one usually sees it, it involves the claim "All truth is relative", and then the question is whether the truth of that claim is relative. If so, then relativism may well be false, relative to something or other; if not, then, well, there is one non-relative truth. So far as I can see, this argument is solid. Radical relativism is self-refuting.

It does not follow, however, that weaker forms of relativism are self-refuting. Indeed, even the view stated as "All truths other than this one are relative" does not seem to be self-refuting. One might wonder what motivation there was for such an odd view, but it does seem consistent. More interestingly, views like moral relativism is not self-refuting: The claim that all moral truths are relative to, say, one's culture is not itself a moral claim and so does not fall within the scope of moral relativism. (That does not, of course, mean that moral relativism is true.)