Relativism

One concept that has arrived in history is the concept of relativism. The idea that our views of everything in the world (or the universe as a whole) is relative to us. A relativist may say, "What may be true for one, may not be true to another, and there is no reason to judge another by one's actions." I do not agree.

Imagine if there are three individuals: A, B, and C. Person A thinks it's his moral obligation to be selfless and to stop any acts of violence. Person B thinks he can torture others because it is fun for him. Person C is the victim of B and is trying to escape the torture of B. This is a hypothetical scenario where Person A is witness to B's torture of C. In a relativistic view, A has no right to get involved because in relativism, no one has a view that is any more correct or just than another point of view. However that conflicts with A's moral view.

I think many may agree with this being problematic. So many relativist will side with the concept of Cultural relativism. This is a similar idea where what be hold true to be right and correct is really correlated with our culture or society, and that we should not judge others based on their beliefs because of their culture. This is a popular concept, and seems widely accepted (I hear arguments for it from sociology).

However, I think it still doesn't escape from the problems with my full relativism. Now imagine two individuals: 1 and 2. Person 1 is like Person A, believes he has the moral obligation to benefit others more than himself, and in a cultural relativist perspective, it is a result of his culture. In 1's culture it is wrong to kill. Person 2 comes from a culture where it is just to kill young ladies after they have given birth to their first child (and that every young lady has to give birth by the age of 25). If these two people meet and Person 1 is witness to the actions of Person 2 as he follows the customs of his culture, Person 1 has, even in a cultural relativistic perspective, not to judge or act against Person 2.

Both are extreme examples, but prove that Relativism doesn't hold true for all situations, whether is cultural relativism or not.

I recently heard an argument of philosophical materialism (which is an atheistic view) about morality. It seems that there is no room for objective (universal and independent of us) morality in the view of philosophical materialism. Charles Taylor brought up a concept of the Imminent Frame. His argument is that nothing is transcendent of the universe. not even morality. Those who have accepted this view believe that morality is objective because human beings have evolved into rational and moral beings.

In the theory of Evolution, what helps the organism survive and thrive is accepted, and what isn't does not last (I do not believe in evolution, but that is an entirely different debate for another time). People who believe in the Imminent Frame try to create the state that morality is objective, but the frame still exists. I have found this basis for an objective morality to be flawed. The belief that humans (as a race) evolved to see an objective moral truth can make morality universal, but not independent. Part of the definition of Objective is that it is both. If we evolved differently, what we (actual) see as morally right, may not be viewed as morally right in the hypothetical alternative. It makes Morality dependent on human beings and relative, instead of the goal of making it objective.

I'm just stating my thoughts, you don't have to agree with me.