3. But that's just your opinion!!

Since becoming a university student, I have become even more addicted to 3 things I already loved: martial arts, comics, and writing. I am very happy to have been able to expand my writing fields beyond trivial things like school essays and vulgar fanfiction to include Buddhist opinion and personal reflections on philosophy. This continuing series of new posts is a testament to my happiness. So without further ado, this is my third entry on my posts about religion and philosophy. Last time I attempted to refute the agnostic person. Today I will get straight into it and address what has become to be seen as a far more sinister force, especially against philosophy: relativism. Just as its name reads, it is the belief that everything is relative. On first glance, it does not sound too bad - advocates of relativism claim it is the only truly tolerant ideal. But herein lies the weakness of relativism. People have beliefs. People have opinions. As long as they are reasonable and not taken too far, these opinions should not be dismissed quickly and should count for something. The relativist looks at any claim to inherent moral value or morality, such as a religion or political creed - and just gives those claims a simple, "Good for you, but it's not objective. Nothing is inherently morally objective."

For example, when the Chinese government imprisons and tortures Tibetans in the name of national sovereignty over Tibet, it's just "their business"... right?

Wrong. It is wrong to ignore the plight of oppressed - especially when it is their "superiors" who are committing the oppression. Even worse, relativists do not bother to dig deeper into the issue - in general, the Chinese people do not want the oppression of Tibetans to continue - the Chinese government does. Likewise, in many different parts of the world, what relativists see as "their culture/religion/custom, therefore their business" is actually not representative of the majority of people, rather the tiny minority in power and those who gain to benefit from such oppression. African women do not want their vaginas mutilated in the name of controlling their sexuality. Muslims do not like being seen as untrustworthy potential terrorists - rather, groups like al-Qaeda thrive being seen as such. The relativists dig themselves into a deeper hole when one asks them if the Holocaust of the Jews or the Killing Fields of Cambodia were "relative". When such atrocities are committed that they scream, "Crime!", the relativist puts himself in a philosophical and moral quandary by denying it was inherently criminal. By now it is almost impossible to have a meaningful discussion with the relativist. Also, because relativists themselves have beliefs and opinions - some stronger than others - that, if they have their buttons pressed in the way they don't want, they will rise to the challenge and defend their views passionately - conveniently forgetting that they hold everything to be relative and of no objective value!

Here is a classic example of confusing scientific principles with metaphysical or ethical concepts. Science has demonstrated that only with the right conditions can life thrive, and the diversity of such sciences like biology, physics and chemistry have led many, not incorrectly, to believe that everything in nature needs to be relative and conditioned in order to be able to be understood. But metaphysical and transcendent truths are completely different; most of them are not natural in any sense of the word. But hardly everything in nature is admirable anyway.

As Simon Blackburn wrote: "There must be a course between the soggy sands of relativism and the cold hard rocks of dogmatism." Even then, a dogmatic position may be preferable to a relativist one - especially when you compare one who feebly announces that human rights are relative, and we should not worry about innocents being tortured in other countries by their superiors - with another who dogmatically and relentlessly pursues an activist protest in the name of the oppressed and weak. Who would achieve more, I wonder? And that is the key.

Having addressed the position that claims there are no inherent moral standards, I will now turn to those who claim they hold the Truth through their Divine Revelation. Of course, the fight against moral relativism cannot end here. One post cannot address all the arguments relativism has thrown at philosophy through its long history. However, for the meantime, this short explanation will suffice for my purposes. Furthermore, there are philosophers who would jump ship altogether, saying that while relativism is useless as a life philosophy, religion also is useless. They believe only one's moral standards can weather the stormy nights of life. They are mostly right. But what if those moral standards are religious? Is there anything wrong with that, or is one taking an easy path? In my next post: "Will the real God please stand up?"