ETHICAL RELATIVISM
The idea of "ethical relativity" and the "social construction of morals"
was probably introduced in ancient Greece through the writings of Herodotus,
sometimes called the "father of history" or "father of anthropology," who in his
Persian Wars* describes in great detail the social mores and customs not only of
the Greeks, e.g. Spartans and Athenians, but of the Egyptians, Persians, and a
host of other peoples and tribes of his times. What is still impressive and
remarkable about his text is the tremendous variety that is found. (*Actual
title, "Inquiries.")
At one point in his narrative of how the conflict began between the
Greeks and the Persians, Herodotus tells the story of some Greek philosophers
who visited the court of Darius, who as King of the Persias, governed over many
peoples with different customs. The Greeks believed in a universal morality:
·
The King asked them what they would take to eat the bodies of their fathers,
knowing that Greek law and morality demanded that ancestors be burned on funeral
pyres. They answered that "no prize even as great as the King could offer" would
be enough for them to commit such an evil deed. Then the King bade his servants
bring in some men from the tribe of the Callatians, whose custom was to devour
the bodies of their ancestors when they died. He asked them, in the presence of
the Greeks, what they would take, to burn their deceased fathers' bodies, rather
than eat them. "Please hush, Great King, and do not speak such evil blasphemy!"
they shouted. Darius then turned to the Greeks and said, "So you see it is true:
Law and Custom is king over all."
Protagoras famously adopted this same idea in his writings, including the
following statement ascribed to him in Plato's Theaetetus: whatever appears to a
city-state to be just and fair, so long as it is regarded as such, is just and
fair to it.
Discuss reasons why someone might insist that "ethics are relative," and why
someone else might insist "they are not." What is your view and reasons? If
ethics are not relative, what is their basis?
PERCEPTUAL RELATIVITY
Protagoras’ doctrine of the relativity of perception is introduced in Plato's
Theaetetus, where Socrates has asked Theaetetus to define "knowledge" and he
says it is perception (i.e. to know x is to perceive that it is so):
S: Let us examine this conception of yours, and
see if it is a true birth or a mere wind-egg:-You say that knowledge is
perception? T: Yes.
S:
Well, you have delivered yourself of a very important doctrine; it is the
opinion of Protagoras, who says "Man is the measure of all things, of the
existence of things that are, and of the non-existence of things that are not."
You have read him? T: O yes, again and again.
S:
Does he not say that things are to you such as they appear to you, and to me
such as they appear to me, and that you and I are men? T: Yes, he says so.
S: A wise man is not likely to talk nonsense.
Let us try to understand him: the same wind is blowing, and yet one of us may be
cold and the other not, or one may be slightly and the other very cold? T: Quite
true.
S: Now is the wind, regarded not in relation to
us but absolutely, cold or not; or are we to say, with Protagoras, that the wind
is cold to him who is cold, and not to him who is not? T: I suppose the last.
S: Then it must appear so to each of them? T:
Yes.
S: And "appears to him" means the same as "he
perceives." T: True.
S: Then appearing and perceiving coincide in the
case of hot and cold, and in similar instances; for things appear, or may be
supposed to be, to each one such as he perceives them? T: Yes.
S: Then perception is always of existence, and
being the same as knowledge is unerring? T: Clearly.
According to Protagoras, perceptions are relative to the individual person.
There might be intersubjective agreement regarding perceptual judgments, but
there could never be objective truth about it, because the perceptual world is
only accessible through individual human perceivers. This has the interesting
consequence, that if person A sees The
light is red and person B sees The
light is not red, both are correct because it is red for person A and is not
red to person B. (Why might someone argue this is or is not a violation of the
PNC?)
The claim is sometimes made that there are "objective" measurements for what is
red or hot or for size. Relativists say these "objective" measurements are based
on agreed-upon standards. Does temperature, for example, as measured by a
thermometer, offer an objective measurement?
Consider these two theories. Which do you agree with and why?
·
Perception realists.
These people say that perception is not "relative" to human individual
perceivers, but that there is a "real" world of objective things that can be
seen and measured, even if some people--even if everyone--fail to perceive it
properly. (For example, if the whole human race were to be given a drug that
made roses seem purple, they still would be red or yellow or pink or white--but
not purple.)
·
Perception relativists.
These people agree with Protagoras that perception is "relative" to human
individual perceivers, and that if there is a "real" world of objective things
out there, there is no way for us to know it.
SCIENTIFIC AND METAPHYSICAL
RELATIVITY
Protagoras’ doctrine of the relativity of knowledge applies not only to the
world as perceived by individual perceivers, but to science and metaphysics as
well.
In
relation to science, Protagoras
taught the 'contingency' (vs. necessity) and 'relativity' (vs. universality) of
all scientific laws.
·
In relation to natural science, he argued
all knowledge of nature is based on limited data, and therefore any law might be
overturned, as we came on new data. Furthermore, since all empirical laws of
nature are formulated by the law of induction (patterns that have happened in
the past, will happen in the future), none can be known 'absolutely', as the law
of induction cannot be proven true, except by begging the question (using it,
i.e. using the past to prove the future).
·
In relation to mathematical science, he said
Neither are the perceptible lines such as
the geometer speaks of them, for a hoop does not touch a straight edge at a
point. This means so-called 'pure' mathematical laws = fictions of the mind,
and whatever 'laws' we may ascribe to them are true only in thought.
Whereas most Presocratics believed in an ultimate truth about
reality--Protagoras believed
metaphysical beliefs were relative to the individuals and communities
holding them and the languages and concepts through which they expressed them.
This is expressed in his concept of 'Sophistic wisdom', by which he meant the
ability to persuade a community of a more useful belief, in his notion of the
'courtroom of knowledge,' and in his saying
Dissoi logoi ("Contending
arguments"), which meant there are always contesting arguments in metaphysics
(about God, the universe, or ethical 'truth'), and these arguments are
"essentially contestable." It is the job of the Sophist to determine which set
of truths is most beneficial to the individual or community, and convince them
of that. In one society it might be important to lessen religious faith (e.g.
where there were fanatical religious wars), whereas in another to strengthen it
(e.g. where nihilism and despair led to chaos).
Sophistic
wisdom:
S. Protagoras would say, "I say that the wise
man is he who makes the bad things which appear and are to a man, into good
things which are and appear to him. Now I cannot conceive that a healthy man or
sick man knows more of the truth than the other: nor that the sick man because
he has one impression is foolish, and the healthy man because he has another is
wise; but the one state requires to be changed into the other, the worse into
the better. Thus the sophist accomplishes by words the change which the
physician works by the aid of drugs. For all perceptions and judgments of value
are relative and equally true; but those that are better are brought about by
the sophist."
The
‘Courtroom of Truth':
S. The great orators and lawyers persuade men by
their art and make them think whatever they want them to, but they do not
'teach' them. Do you imagine that there are any teachers in the world so clever
as to be able to convince others of the truth about acts of robbery or violence,
of which they were not eye-witnesses? T. Certainly not, they can only persuade
them.
Soc. And would you not say that persuading them
is making them have an opinion? T. To be sure.
Soc. When, therefore, the judges and jury attain
a true opinion, they judge without
knowledge and yet are rightly
persuaded. T. Certainly. S: but the one is less than the other? T. Of course. S:
Because true opinion is much less than knowledge? T. Correct.
S. Now to this, Protagoras would say that there
is no difference between a law-court and knowledge, for the law-court
establishes what is true for all, just as when men agree about what they see or
think is right, that establishes what is true and what is false, what is just
and what is unjust, what is noble and what is base. T. What happens then to the
idea of wisdom as opposed to common
agreement?
S. The Sophist is the one who can convince the
court of what is more beneficial to believe. Of course, he must start out with
all the different beliefs they have already, which are like the laws they agree
on. But he can convince them which witnesses to believe, and which to reject.
And if he is really wise, he can even convince them, right in the courtroom, to
change those laws.
T. You mean he would reject your idea, that
judges should base their verdicts on knowledge, rather than mere opinion?
S. Correct. He would say this distinction does
not really exist. All that exists is
opinion, which is "justified" differently to different people. The true
Sophist will find the way to 'prove' what he says is true, i.e. will find a way
to convince people, using whatever witnesses or other means he needs.
Discuss your reasons for being a "realist" or "relativist" with respect to
science and metaphysics.
AGNOSTICISM
Protagoras is also famous for his declaration of agnosticism regarding the gods:
"As for the gods, I know nothing of their existence or non-existence or
qualities. The subject is too obscure, and human life is too short.”
As we have seen, there were several "theologies" that emerged among the ancient
Greeks.
1.
One of course was the traditional
theology, which rested on the sacred authority of myths and such poets as
Homer and Hesiod. But their theology was attacked as "anthropomorphic" by
Xenophanes, who claimed these divinities were merely creatures of the human
imagination. A similar idea was found in the writings of Prodicus, "The ancients
considered as gods the sun and moon, rivers, springs, and in general all things
that assist our life, just as the Egyptians deify the Nile.”
2.
A second was the philosophical theology
introduced by Xenophanes, which declared there was a non-corporeal God-Being,
who 'moved' things by thought alone, and was utterly unlike the things found in
the world. This idea of God was said by Anaxagoras to have 'ordered' and 'set
the universe in motion' (the daily, monthly and annual rotations of the stars,
sun and moon), and to be responsible for teleological patterns in living things.
3.
A third was the atheist theology,
first uttered by Critias, who explained that the gods were a human invention,
for the sake of controlling human behavior: "A wise and clever man invented the
gods, saying that even if you planned evil deeds in secret, you would not escape
their eye and retribution.
4.
Last but not least, was Protagoras' doctrine of
theological agnosticism, the idea
that since "knowledge" concerning the gods was impossible, men should concern
themselves with improving their lives in this world, and not waste their time
thinking about the gods or whether there was an afterlife.
Discuss why someone might insist that "There is good reason to believe that
God(s) exists" and why someone else might insist "There is no good reason to
think God exists." Is this a debate that can ever be answered--or one of those
Dissoi Logoi ("contending arguments")
Protagoras talks of, that cannot be resolved? Do
you agree with Protagoras' doctrine of agnosticism, as the "most sensible" path
for human beings--why or why not?