1 What is Relativism ? Paul
نویسنده
چکیده
Few philosophers have been tempted to be relativists about absolutely everything—although, we are told, there have been some notable exceptions (Protagoras). Many philosophers, however, have been tempted to be relativists about specific domains of discourse, especially about those domains that have a normative character. Gilbert Harman, for example, has defended a relativistic view of morality, Richard Rorty a relativistic view of epistemic justification, and Crispin Wright a relativistic view of judgments of taste.1 But what exactly is it to be a relativist about a given domain of discourse? The term ‘‘relativism’’ has, of course, been used in a bewildering variety of senses and it is not my aim to discuss each and every one of those senses here. Rather, what interests me is the notion that is characterized by the following core idea: the relativist about a given domain, D, purports to have discovered that the truths of D involve an unexpected relation to a parameter. This idea lies at the heart of the most important and successful relativistic theses ever proposed. Thus, Galileo discovered that the truths about motion are unexpectedly relational in that the motion of an object is always relative to a variable frame of reference. And Einstein discovered that the truths about mass are unexpectedly relational in that the mass of an object is always relative to a variable frame of reference. In this paper, I will develop a model for how such discoveries should be understood. And I will then consider to what extent that model gives us a purchase on the sorts of relativistic theses—about morality, for example, or epistemic justification—which have most interested philosophers.
منابع مشابه
Moral Relativism Explained
Moral relativism, as I understand it, is the claim that there is not a single objectively true morality but only many different moralities, just as there is not a single true language but only many different languages. Different people may have different moralities as reflected in the way they act and the ways they react to the actions of others and there is no objective way to show that one of...
متن کاملIncoherence in Epistemic Relativism
In “Epistemic Relativism,” Mark Kalderon defends a view that has become increasingly popular across various academic disciplines. He wrote his article in response to Paul Boghossian’s book Fear of Knowledge, in which epistemic relativism is criticized and dismissed as incoherent. Kalderon argues that Boghossian does not accurately characterize epistemic relativism resulting in a hasty dismissal...
متن کاملVarying versions of moral relativism: the philosophy and psychology of normative relativism
Among naturalist philosophers, both defenders and opponents of moral relativism argue that prescriptive moral theories (or normative theories) should be constrained by empirical findings about human psychology. Empiricists have asked if people are or can be moral relativists, and what effect being a moral relativist can have on an individual’s moral functioning. This research is underutilized i...
متن کامل1 What is Relativism ?
Few philosophers have been tempted to be relativists about absolutely everything—although, we are told, there have been some notable exceptions (Protagoras). Many philosophers, however, have been tempted to be relativists about specific domains of discourse, especially about those domains that have a normative character. Gilbert Harman, for example, has defended a relativistic view of morality,...
متن کاملMotivations for Relativism as a Solution to Disagreements
There are five basic ways to resolve disagreements: keep arguing until capitulation, compromise, locate an ambiguity or contextual factors, accept Pyrrhonian skepticism, and adopt relativism. Relativism is perhaps the most radical and least popular solution to a disagreement, and its defenders generally think the best motivator for relativism is to be found in disputes over predicates of person...
متن کامل