Okay, so I've been taking a World Philosophers on Death class for about a week now. It's very intriguing and the professor is definitely thought provoking, although a bit extreme. He's been talking about relativism to get into the class, and, quite frankly, he's right. It's complete bull.
I'll tell you everything he said.

If all truth is relative, then
1) the word "true" has no meaning,
2) there cannot be a false statement,
3) there can be no better or worse opinion,
and, this is by far the best argument against relativism:
4) It is a self-refuting statement. You're making an absolute claim while denying that you can make an absolute claim.

Yes, there are different types of relativism, and it cannot all be lumped into one statement, but that one statement is wrong.

Any thoughts?

(Here's #3, Delta. And I also take claim for every post that comes after this in this thread even if it isn't mine, since I generated this discussion.)

Sounds like a class designed to train people to think up plausible BS excuses for behavior to me so far.

Yeah, it does. Realitivism begets truth within a culture. Bam, all those other statements are shot down.

This idea, as you put it, is almost word for word what William Shaw said a while back.

I think they went a bit far with saying all is relative but I would agree that some things are.

Not at all.
Would you mind actually backing up your argument? You talk big, but you provide nothing to support it.

This is what my teacher put up on the board. If you have any remarks as to supposed plagiarism, take it up with him.

Of course some truths are relative. I never said otherwise. However, the idea that "all truth is relative" is ridiculous and, with the four points I just mentioned, easily refuted.

I have yet to see anyone actually try to prove that all truth is relative. And until then, I stand firm with what I said. And that is what this topic is about. Not about relativism in particular, but about that one saying relativists like to strut about.

To understand the statement that those people like to "strut" around, you have to understand the sociological context it is in, which I stated.

I guess I don't understand what you're getting at. How does cultural or sociological context prove that all truth is relative?

When people say that truth is realitive (I've never, in my experince with philosophy hear anyone say "All truth is realitive) they mean it within a culture. And that is true. Truth within a culture may not be that way outside of it. Relgious cultures play this up, but so do secular societies.

If you disagree, name three "Truths"

Never even implied that you did. You asked for thoughts so I stated mine ever so briefly.

If they are relative I wouldn't call them truths except when stating that someone feels that way or something similar.

Is "relative truth" an oxymoron?

I wouldn't say so. Because somthing can be a truth to me. Or you.

It could be truth to (for example) you that God existists and is part of your life everyday. That might be a truth, totally correct as far as you are concerned. And I might not share that idea, making it not be a truth for me.

According to that, is there a difference between "belief" and "truth"?

I'm sure a belief can be a truth for some.

A belief is what we see as being the truth whether warranted or not.

A truth ultimately is what has been tried and tested and found to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

A relative truth is a belief.


Tis how I'd define them all.

Well I guess when you start entering into the concept of infinite possibities within a plane of existence then then everything goes out the window and its a free for all but there are limitations in this existence therefore I think there are some truths.

This doesn't quite answer the question "what is the difference between truth and belief."

I can claim a belief in something that's not true as my individual perception. People would just think me a fool unless I prove otherwise to be true.

Truths require general acceptance and demonstration by society. Beliefs not necessarily so. I think society applies different standards to them in their usage. If enough people believe then its accepted as truth. Whether it actually is or not in scientific terms. (eg. the world being flat). Society functions on the accepted truths and beliefs. What scale are you measuring by? Global, national, village, or individual? What's an accepted truth in a village may be accepted on a global scale and therefore is called a belief.

Well, here are the five types of truth:

1. Subjective truth: It's a first-person retort. Only I can experience it. For example, "I like pain."

2. Objective truth: There is eveidence of this. It is a third person observation. For example, "Most pain is neuronal."

3. Intersubjective truth: It is a normative statement, or made through consensus. For example, "Don't cause pain."

4. Necessary truth: A definition. It is self-evident. For example, "Pain hurts." Or, "2+2=4"

5. Absolute truth: This one is a little tricky, as there can always be some place in the universe that is an exception. It is a speculative or hypothetical truth that makes an objective truth absolute. For example, "All pain is absolute."

And Delta, please explain cultural relativism. Are you saying that no culture can be "wrong"? Perhaps I'm a little confused.

The statement "All truth is relative" is so problematic because it is an abuse of language. It's like saying "All beings do not exist."

As soon as you add the predicate "relative" to the word "truth," you can no longer use the word "truth." You might say, "all ethical systems" are relative, or "there is no such thing as truth," but I think it's problematic to say "all truth is relative."

Its the basic understand that cultures are different. As such, we can't judge them by our standards, they have their own stadards to judge by within culture. Cultures themseleves can choose right and wrong, but on the greater scale, it isn't always right.

Do you believe there is a greater scale?

It depends what you consider a greater scale. I consider humanity a greater scale, that above cultures or groups. Thus, yes, I do.

Although I have not thought about this issue in depth, I am inclined to agree with psycholopher here. This argument, althought it may appeal to me (as I am not a moral relativist) seems to me more of a clever play on words than anything else -- similar to the nonsense argument that claims that God cannot exist because of the impossibility of him creating a rock so heavy blah blah blah.

If you're talking about ethical relativism here, as Deltasix has repeatedly addressed, especially in terms of cultural relativism, I'll offer my justification for rejecting it as a plausable ethical perspective:- If we take as the theses of cultural relativism that the assignment of value judgements moral/immoral to an action depend and diversify relative to the culture that applies it, and thus it's wrong to apply one's own culture's morality to an action by one from another culture - "culture" is a term too weak to stand up to a thorough analysis of these theses; first, in modernity the majority of us identify with more than one culture and this leads to a contradictory value (for an eg, a catholic english woman is both immoral and morally indifferent if she has an abortion), second, culture can be broken down greatly, for instance, unless it is further restricted (and to place these restrictions from your culture on another culture's definition of culture is surely in defiance of the spirit of relativism) as to what may be defined a "culture", I could define a group of yobs smoking drugs and robbing passers-by as a culture, by which their actions are morally justifiable. I could also then lapse my definition of culture into subjectivism - I myself constitute my own culture, and thus my whim is moral therefore as long as I do not contravene my own standards, I am morally good. Of course, this itself can be made more ludicrous again. If I take as one of my moral principles 'Hypocrisy is morally permissible', I can do anything at all morally. Hence, I have removed the possibility of immorality from my subjectivist stance. Or, I could assume the position of a schizophrenic, with multiple personalities, all of whom have different subjectivist personal cultures, which between them legislate for any possible act to be moral.

If anyone wishes to object "slippery slope fallacy" to that argument, let him provide reason why one could not argue thus for subjectivism from the these of cultural relativism.

Moral truth (that being the correct appropriation of value judgments moral/immoral/indifferent to an act or trait), I propose, is either objective or non-existant.

All of that is addressed by the simple concept of lesser groups or sects within a culture, and the overall culture. One can be an outcast of a group for not smoking pot, because everyone there is doing so. That doesn't make that group a culture. Culture is defined on broader, sociological terms, thus making not smoking pot a norm, (well, sort of) despite the subgroup's (or "subculture's) judgement.

Notice how no culture has that though? And you know why? Because no collective would conciously do it. Cultural realitivism has its limits, but they aren't enforced by supernatural or definition or anything of the type, they are merely enforced by the fact that people act within them. There are some things collectives just don't do. Could you define those as moral limits? Prehaps, if you wanted it, but it would be a shakey definition at best, and would lead you right back to cultural relativism.
The reason that you can't use singluar examples is simple, and as I've stated. Societies don't work in the singular.

It doesn't follow from the anti-ethnocentrism of cultural relativism that we can typify one group as a subgroup or subculture, and another as an overall culture. Because one cultural norm is not smoking pot, another culture can emerge where this norm is embraced, even if it is a minor culture or a culture that derives a lot of its values from another. Greater membership or longer history does not make a culture more significant or dominant than another, nor does pulling together elements of other cultures make a culture derivitive - Peter the Great showed this with St. Petersburg.

Yes, no collective would consciously lapse into subjectivism, but a singular person can. I can give examples - Ted Bundy lapsed into this manner of thinking, as can be seen in his justifications of his actions, where he refers to this debate as justification for his murders, I could hold that Jesus Christ was to some extent a subjectivist in his denial of many, but not all, of his culture's views and the adoption of new ones - a subjectivist culture that later gained support (and endless tedious modification, I might add) from a larger cultural base.

If these limits are defined because people work within them, it takes only someone to step without them to expose them. The older bigger cultures can suppress this - Bundy can be locked up, Christ can be executed - but this does not make the theses of cultural relativism secure any more than wallpapering over a crack in a wall makes the wall secure again.

I'm not arguing that people don't practice cultural relativism, merely that it's not sound.

Sure we can. Its an issue of power, pure and simple.

So? That means in one culture, if it is in fact a seperate culture, that pot is the norm, and in the other it isn't. Doesn't make pot inherrently good or bad, which is my point.

Err, thats not what I care to debate, but okay. Sure, one person can do that, it doesn't effect my overall point of there being cultural relativism.

Ah, I see your point now. Well, it can be sound, it can not be sound, it all depends on how it is applied and used. And of course, what your relative definition of "sound" is ;) .

Which is why Ktama proposed that either morality is not relative, or it doesn't exist. I agree. The moment you say that "morality" is relative, you're not really talking about morality in the sense of ethics/prescriptive behavior. Rather, you're now talking about morality as "mores"--as normative/descriptive behavior.

I have always believed firmly in relativism. It shows itself in everyday life, in our thoughts and actions. It reflects our experiences. I suspect that your professor has a reason relative to his experiences and circumstances for denouncing relativism.

A topic like this should be approached by an educator in a way to make you think,
so you can debate within yourself, challenge your own views and draw your own conclusions. It shouldn't be presented as fact, unless the professor is an absolutist and absolutists shouldn't be teaching philosophy. The debate about relativism is as old as debates about religion and good vs. evil. The truth is within you.

I agree. I've found many times that professors say things like that in class just to get a reaction from the students, to make them think, as you said. Often times though you talk to them after class and what they think is totally different from what they said in the classroom.

Works very well in economics, philosophy, and sociology, it always gets quite the reaction.

Back to a more contingent idea. the statement "All truth is relative" is a self-negating. If all truth is in fact relative, then the statement must also relative. Or one could hold that this statement is in fact true, and build upon it as being the one self-evident truth, which also negates the statement.

In any case, I often beleive that these kinds of ideas represent attempts to get at growing concern about the death of mono-truths (the idea there is one truth in any given context). I believe it is possible for there to be many truths, and not them be relative to one another. Just as it is possible for there to be many things false. I think people get into the relativity debate because, we have difficulty concieving of two things which are contradictary as being both "true." This is why it is important not to speak about relativity or truth, in of themselves, but rather in contexts, ie. the many forms of truth, subjective, objective etc. As well as the many forms of relativity, ie, Moral, Cultural etc.