Soft Relativism; A Self- Stultifying View Paulina Panus
The term ‘soft’ relativism relates to this idea that each person has his or her own values that they formulate in their lives, and “no one has a right to criticize another’s values” (Taylor 45), because it is impossible to argue or reason about them, as well as it is wrong in doing so. This term provides an opportunity for “everyone [to] have the right and capacity to be themselves” (45). This creates a moral position, that Taylor claims derives from a kind of individualism; a principle of being independent and self-reliant. Relativism is a term that generates this primary focus on the self, where an individual’s values are …show more content…
It is a view that is self- defeating and illogical. Like Taylor stated previously, to assert that there is no moral standard and morality is left to the individual to decide what defines it, is in itself a claim made about morality, proposing this presence of an objective standard. With relativism in place there would be no such thing as progress because without a fixed moral objective standard there is nothing to measure morality by. Analyzing this view a little more closely, ‘soft relativism’ is counterintuitive. In relativism, morality to anyone is whatever they want it to be, demonstrating this act that not one principle is better in comparison to another. Thus, brutally murdering or raping someone without any intention is acceptable behavior and not considered wrong or worse than any other act. Having this type of view present in the world, produces a dangerous and toxic environment. It devalues the meaning of human life because it makes you think that atrocious events in the past including genocide, mass murder and slavery may be looked upon for some individuals as right and not wrong since their value system is not existent, thus possibly believing there is nothing incorrect with these actions executed. With this type of view, you are …show more content…
They cannot complain about evil, injustice or even debate certain issues because in their standpoint there is no such thing as that. Soft relativism is based on subjectivity where, individuals rely on the greatest appeal and benefit in their options. In a simple example, where a relativist crosses paths with a non-relativist, they might exchange opinions on their beliefs, defending their views from the other person, while persuading them to understand why their views are right or better. This in itself is an act of opinion and not allowing others to express their opinion and understandings, thus not expressing this idea of everyone having his or her own values that they formulate in their lives, and where these values are not and should not be corrected. If asked what is the prettiest colour, one might say red and the other blue, where each answer is dependent on a subject and personal preference. We are all unique, thus making our preferences exclusive to ourselves, where some may enjoy more lighter and warmer tones, while others like cooler or more darker ones. Therefore, saying there is a better or best colour enforces this idea that there is a moral truth or standard that guides these answers.
The term ‘soft’ relativism relates to this idea that each person has his or her own values that they formulate in their lives, and “no one has a right to criticize another’s values” (Taylor 45), because it is impossible to argue or reason about them, as well as it is wrong in doing so. This term provides an opportunity for “everyone [to] have the right and capacity to be themselves” (45). This creates a moral position, that Taylor claims derives from a kind of individualism; a principle of being independent and self-reliant. Relativism is a term that generates this primary focus on the self, where an individual’s values are …show more content…
It is a view that is self- defeating and illogical. Like Taylor stated previously, to assert that there is no moral standard and morality is left to the individual to decide what defines it, is in itself a claim made about morality, proposing this presence of an objective standard. With relativism in place there would be no such thing as progress because without a fixed moral objective standard there is nothing to measure morality by. Analyzing this view a little more closely, ‘soft relativism’ is counterintuitive. In relativism, morality to anyone is whatever they want it to be, demonstrating this act that not one principle is better in comparison to another. Thus, brutally murdering or raping someone without any intention is acceptable behavior and not considered wrong or worse than any other act. Having this type of view present in the world, produces a dangerous and toxic environment. It devalues the meaning of human life because it makes you think that atrocious events in the past including genocide, mass murder and slavery may be looked upon for some individuals as right and not wrong since their value system is not existent, thus possibly believing there is nothing incorrect with these actions executed. With this type of view, you are …show more content…
They cannot complain about evil, injustice or even debate certain issues because in their standpoint there is no such thing as that. Soft relativism is based on subjectivity where, individuals rely on the greatest appeal and benefit in their options. In a simple example, where a relativist crosses paths with a non-relativist, they might exchange opinions on their beliefs, defending their views from the other person, while persuading them to understand why their views are right or better. This in itself is an act of opinion and not allowing others to express their opinion and understandings, thus not expressing this idea of everyone having his or her own values that they formulate in their lives, and where these values are not and should not be corrected. If asked what is the prettiest colour, one might say red and the other blue, where each answer is dependent on a subject and personal preference. We are all unique, thus making our preferences exclusive to ourselves, where some may enjoy more lighter and warmer tones, while others like cooler or more darker ones. Therefore, saying there is a better or best colour enforces this idea that there is a moral truth or standard that guides these answers.