[MD] Relativism

[Steven Peterson]

Hi DMB, Marsha,


> Marsha wondered if this definition is too plain-spoken:
> rel·a·tiv·ism  n.   Philosophy. A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.


Steve:
Sounds right to me, Marsha.


> dmb says:
> Marsha supplied a definition that describes relativism as the theory that truth and values are relative to the persons or groups holding them. Rorty says justification (forget truth) is relative to the group, the audience. This is the position that adds up to relativism.

Steve:
The problem for you, Dave, is that this definition Marsha supplied
also fits Pirsig and James to whatever degree it fits Rorty. For
Pirsig and James, truth as well as justification are relative. That
has been my point all along. There is no way for you to define
relativism in such a way that condemns Rorty, as you are so eager to
do, and simultaneously leaves James and Pirsig above reproach. That is
the only reason I can imagine tat you have continually refused to
define the term relativism.

The so-called problem of relativism is a fake problem that can only be
articulated in SOM terns that Rorty, James, and Pirsig reject. Again I
suggest that the issue of concern ought to be moral clarity rather
than relativism. Moral clarity rather than relativism is the cleavage
term that will separate the liberal intellectuals that Harris
complains as "relativists" who can't say that female genital
mutilation is wrong from Pirsig, James, and Rorty who can all take a
stand and make reasoned arguments against such abominations.

Best,
Steve