Michael Appiah Against Positivism

The positivist argument that the world is “the totality of facts” and that there is no intrinsic values, just complex desires seems to fall into the same sort of ideas of critical thinking and the fact vs opinion distinction that is so familiar. The distinction between beliefs as a form of truth, and desires as individual, seems like it is similar to existentialism, although existentialism also deals with other aspects such as prime reality in a way that positivism does not directly. These two psychological states of positivism however, if I followed the argument Appiah makes correctly, will lead us to relativism. Another dead end in trying to approach the idea of morals and how they change around the world. I agree with Appiah’s argument against positivism though, in that not …show more content…
From where you stand, you are right [...] People often recommend relativism because they think it will lead to tolerance. But if we cannot learn from one another what is right to think feel and do, then conversation between us will be pointless” (31). Relativism is an easy way out of hard conversations. From my experience it is incredibly difficult to have a discussion about values and ideas that are ingrained in how you identify who you are and what is important to you when the person on the other side of the discussion disagrees and holds their values just as close to their emotions as you do. I do not have an answer, but I wonder if the people who suggest that relativism as the answer truly believe it, or if it is just more convenient for them? It is vital to be able to understand and have perspective on the values and morals of other people and other cultures, and it is something we should never take for granted, but it is incredibly unhelpful to be unable to judge their values and