Ahh, relativism, that ol' chestnut.

I'm pretty anti-relativist. Not to the point to being an absolute objectivist, but pretty close. Close enough to make me role my eyes at comments that deny objective reality, or moral/scientific objective truths.

At its core, I view relativism as the (perhaps well-intended but  nonetheless ridiculous) denial of the existence of rational standards. 

Science-writer and academic Dr. Gary Herstein fleshes out the logical and ethical vacuity of relativism, in a way I find very agreeable and succinct.


The relativistic approach to culture and ethics can be found everywhere, and one could say that it is deeply embedded within the thinking of many people, and is the foundation stone for political correctness. When someone says "This is my truth, that is your truth, they are equally valid, so let's agree to disagree", that's relativism in action.

"What's the problem with that?" you may ask. "Who is anyone to say that one claim to truth is more valid than any other?"

Superficially, I suppose that it's a fairly nice way of looking at things. There are some viciously absolutist systems in this world. The retreat into relativism is perhaps an (intellectually lazy) attempt to find tolerance in an otherwise intolerant world...

However, we must not confuse one’s right to believe what they choose 

with the absurd notion that those beliefs are equally true.

When it comes to scientific knowledge, the claim that there can be no objective truth is philosophically sound, but rather irrational in practice. Are we relativists about the warnings on a box of rat poison? hmmm?

Writer and neuroscientist Sam Harris makes an compelling case against relativism, and asserts that science can show us about moral values and human well-being in his rather infamous TED talk:

Feminist academic Donna Haraway is also very compelling in her rejection of relativism, as a basis in calling for the development of a 'feminist empiricism' in relation to scientific knowledge;  "...partial, locatable, critical knowledges sustaining the possibility of webs of connections called solidarity in politics and shared conversations in epistemology" (Haraway, 1991, p.191)

Stand to your feet and slow-clap over this doozy of a sentence (I know I did):
"Relativism is a way of being nowhere while claiming to be everywhere equally. The 'equality of positioning is a denial of responsibility and critical inquiry. Relativism is the perfect mirror twin of totalization in the ideologies of objectivity; both deny the stakes in location, embodiment, and partial perspective; both make it impossible to see well" (Haraway 1991, p.191).

I read Haraway as having alot in common with Post-positivist thinking and Karl Popper, in that objective knowledge is not denied (relativised), but objectivity is sought by recognising the possible effects of biases.



On a related note, the relativistic phrase "What's true for you is true for you" is frequently used in advertising material for the Church of Scientology.  Yikes.

Reference:
Haraway, D 1991, "Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective", Symians, cyborgs and women; the reinvention of nature, Routledge, New York, pp. 183-201.