|
I take it that to most people the above title seems simply
outrageous. It is normally assumed that it is the relativist who is
open-minded, and the absolutist closed-minded. But as Alan Bloom has argued
in his brilliant critique of American education, The Closing of the American Mind, nothing could be further from
the truth. Relativism and an open mind are placed together because
relativism entails that your view is no better than anyone else’s, and so
other views will be worth listening to. But of course relativism also
entails that other peoples views are no better than my own. If this is so,
then there really is no reason at all to listen to other people’s views.
Were relativism true, then my view couldn’t possibly become any better by
incorporating other people’s ideas into my own way of thinking. If my view
could be so improved this would imply that there was a standard,
independent of my view, which measured this improvement. But the existence
of such a standard would imply the existence of an absolute, which is just
what the relativist wants to deny.
Chesterton compared an open mind to an open mouth. The point of
both, he said, was to close upon something solid. To be open-minded does
not mean to think one can never come to conclusions with any degree of
certainty. Indeed the point of open-mindedness is to be able to rationally
assess different views and then be able to make a informed choice between
them. Such a choice will always imply that the chosen view is (thought to
be) preferable to its alternatives. It should be noted that even the
relativist cannot avoid such choices, he has, after all, chosen against
absolutism. It follows, therefore, that the relativist should think either
that his relativism is held without good reason or that some positions can
be rationally preferable to others. If he adopts the former he has no
rational grounds to criticise any who disagree with him, but if he adopts
the later he has, in effect, abandoned his relativism.
The relativist’s position is one of numerous paradoxes. Many cling
to this position for fear of telling others that they are in the wrong. How
can those in one culture, they argue, criticise the views of another
culture? How can we say that we are right, and they are wrong? But the
obvious truth is that very few cultures have held to relativism, and by
embracing it ourselves we still end up telling others they are wrong in
their absolutism. The relativist doesn’t think that relativism is only true
‘for him’, or for those in his culture. He thinks it is true for everyone.
In other words, if relativism is really true, it is absolutely true. But if
anything is absolutely true, not merely true ‘for me’ or true for a
particular culture, then relativism is false!
There are many other
problems aside from these purely logical ones. As already noted relativism
implies that improvement is impossible. The inevitable result is that all
moral reform is either wrong or pointless. Furthermore, inter-cultural
comparisons become impossible. Nazi Germany comes out as no worse than any
other culture.
With such horrendous moral and intellectual consequences, the
unavoidable conclusion then, is that relativism, in its absolute denial of
absolutes, is by far the most pernicious form of absolutism.
Last Updated: 23nd
August 2002
|
