There are a lot of things going on in the political stratosphere lately, but every now again it's fun to tackle an ideological point of view and lay out the pros and cons. Sure, I could write about redistricting here in Indiana, or the Libyan battles, or any number of topics (including my own campaign for Hebron Town Council, sorry for the drop) but these ideological pieces are important to throw in every now and again because, while there is often less of a consensus among people on these sorts of things, they are equally important when talking about politics.When dealing with the issue of relativism, both on a philosophical level and a “real time” level, so to speak, relativism is…well…relative. Goodman certainly makes a case in “Some Moral Minima” that relativism’s role in society is a limited doctrine and that there are universally agreed criteria that have trumped this thought process through the ages (i.e. woman’s rights, slavery, etc.). However, the practical applications for many other social issues through the political spectrum are still being “vetted”, in a sense, by the general public. I happen to agree, on a grander scale, with Goodman; not everything is relative. But I also agree that, on a less grand scale, people are not altruistic in nature. We are selfish, stubborn beings, who usually require some kind of push in order to do what is right, and this push usually comes in the form of the classic “invisible hand” (meaning we are doing what is right because it is mutually beneficial) or some kind of heavenly doctrine (like the Bible teaching that something is wrong and so, to save our souls, we don’t do that thing).
Each issue in particular, for me at least, has its own argument where relativity comes into play. One good example would be the classic argument against capitalism, whether that argument is being made by those of a socialist orientation, a Marxist one, etc., the argument against is pretty much the same; capitalism isn’t fair and, therefore, not relative, because there are those that have a lot of goods and monies and those that have no goods and monies. These statements are true; through capitalism there are those that amass large sums of wealth that could never be spent in one lifetime and those that make almost nothing and live out of their vehicles. However, this is one case that I defer to relativism, because while capitalism is not perfect on a societal scale, it is perfect on an individual one. Each person is given the responsibility of their own wealth and fortune, and the loss of that wealth and fortune is typically that individuals own fault. That person either mismanaged his finances, or didn’t plan well, or was foolish with his spending. Certainly there is a case to be made that there are those that lose their wealth and it is not their own fault, whether it be through medical accidents, bank failures, etc., and definitely this is an area that I think most people are fine, as a practical real time application, with looking past that individualism to play a greater role as a society by using tax monies to help remedy the situation, for a time at least.
However, a look through another filter, that of the anti-altruistic, shows that this in itself doesn’t prove that people would prefer something other than capitalism, but rather that people accept some forms of relativism, because there are some things that are just right; like helping those in need. This point can be argued, of course, by the altruistic that this proves that people are at heart good, unselfish people, however since charity is taught in almost all religious scripture, the counter argument that people do these things to save their souls more than anything comes into play. Additionally, nobody wants to be labeled a “Scrooge”, and nobody wants to have their neighbor’s home become foreclosed because it would then lower everybody’s property value on that street; all points that make a case for people being inherently selfish by nature.
One more example of the “great debate” between relativism supporters and the opposition, when looking at real time scenarios, is the argument over abortion. Is this a matter of a woman’s reproductive rights? Or is it a matter of the rights of an unborn child to life? When polled, people are pretty well split down the middle; most people want abortion to stay legal, but want restrictions on abortion, particularly in the later stages of pregnancy. These polls suggest that the general public does not know the answer of whether abortion is, as a whole, wrong, or don’t want to think about the issue in depth, and therefore the thoughts of the public body as a whole cannot be used as any sort of societal “right vs. wrong” scale in this instance.
Those that look to abortion as an issue of reproductive rights use relativism to justify their thoughts. Granted, an unborn child is being killed, they argue, at least when talking about the later stage abortions, but the rights of the woman trump those of the child. The woman is already a member of society, and whether one thinks abortion is morally right or wrong that woman is the person who will ultimately have to stand before her god and answer for what she has done. So in this case, though it may be wrong or unjust, it is all relative to that individual’s point of view. This, as noted, does not include early stage abortion arguments, which are centered on the thought that it is not a child, but rather a “fetus” that is being aborted; again, it is relative, because it depends on how one looks at the early stages of the pregnancy.
Those that don’t believe that the abortion issue is one of relativity, but rather that there is a moral element to the issue, with that element being that abortion is the murder of an unborn child: period. The early stage of pregnancy does not demote the status of the child to “fetus” simply because it is still forming its organs and growing. Whether or not a person will have to stand before their god is not relative; in the late stages of pregnancy a child can, with medical support, survive outside of the womb, and so there is no real reason for late term abortions. Abortion cannot be explained away, cannot be reasoned into submission, abortion is murder, willful murder, or an individual who cannot speak for him or herself.
The philosophical debate over abortion may never end; both sides of the issue are very ardent in their views and ideology, with little room for middle ground, even if the general population takes a middle ground stance on the issue. My own personal thoughts on this issue, in particular? I fall on the pro-life side, though I would like to see the middle ground worked towards because it is at least better than two hard lined positions with nothing really getting done on the issue. On the issue of economic differences, I find myself very much pro-capitalism. Certainly a person could read through my thoughts and claim me to be a hypocrite. How can a person think one issue is relative, and another not? Doesn’t that put me in two ideologically different camps on two separate issues?
Yes and no. Relativism certainly has its place when one is looking at issues on all levels; ideological, philosophical, and practical. Relativism should not be a blanket that envelopes every issue, just like ideological and philosophical thoughts on matters shouldn’t. Rather, it should be a tool to help one figure out not only one’s personal thoughts on varying issues, but solutions to those issues and ways to better keep individual liberty while simultaneously promoting the well being of society as a whole. There are plenty of other arguments out there both for and against different issues, including the two talked about above, and there are infinite different combination's of different individuals who embrace one idea and reject another for different reasons. However, to use relativism as anything else other than another tool to learn about the world around you is foolish thinking that allows one to be led by the nose by one singular idea.
