A Practical Rejection of Conceptual Relativism

In a previous essay, A Practical Rejection of Material Relativism, I demonstrated that nobody actually believes in material relativism. Using simple logic and common, everyday examples, I illustrated that everyone firmly believes that their sensory experience of the world is reliable, and that each person believes that others' sensory experience of the world is identical or largely similar to their own. These premises are simply a matter of common sense and for all functional purposes nobody questions them. However, material relativism is not an especially commonly held form of modern relativism. Conceptual relativism is much more common and, in many ways, far more intellectually and practically dangerous. Generally, when people try to invoke relativism in support of their beliefs or as a tool to dismiss opposing beliefs, it is used in the realms of morality and spirituality. As such, relativism is a set of metaphysical beliefs that has a profound impact on one's worldview, one's everyday actions and one's relationship with God, human beings and the physical universe.

For the purposes of this essay, conceptual relativism is a belief that since you see things one way and I see things another way, perhaps the truth is that both views are equally correct and we are just looking at the universe in different ways. If this is true in the conceptual realm, then perhaps my view that adultery is wrong is true for me, and your view that all consensual sex is perfectly moral and acceptable is true for you. Perhaps Jesus is my Savior and the only way to heaven, but maybe for you, submission to Allah is the way to salvation. Maybe in my world, God created the entire universe 6,000 years ago, but in your world the universe evolved over billions and billions of years. If we actually live in a truly relative universe, then it is entirely possible that your beliefs, my beliefs, and the beliefs of each person are all completely true, because we would indeed be living in quite divergent worlds.

Obviously, there is a vast divergence of beliefs about everything in this world; there are wildly varying economic theories, philosophical models, religious beliefs, social norms, cultural forces, academic values, ethical judgments and so many other things! As such, how does one decide what to believe? Does it matter? If we live in a relative world, then you simply can't be wrong about anything. Since all beliefs are equally true, then it doesn't matter what you believe or don't believe. Obviously, we don't believe that beliefs don't matter. In fact no-one does. Though conceptual relativism has many philosophical flaws and utterly contradicts the evidence of the real world, I need not expound these multitudinous flaws for the same simple reason I advocated in my last essay:

No one actually believes in relativism!

Again, I'm not saying that a person couldn't believe in relativism, I'm just saying that no-one does. On what basis can I make such a claim? The way people act and the things they claim to believe are quite incompatible with relativism. This is especially true in the realms of morality and spirituality. If a person ever disagrees about anything, they have just illustrated that they do not believe in relativism. If a person ever seeks to use logic to prove a point, they cannot possibly be a relativist. If a person ever judges the actions of another, then they clearly believe that what is true for them is true for everyone else as well. Shortly, I will explain why logic and moral judgments refute a belief in relativism, but before that I must briefly touch on semantics to show that people fundamentally agree that concepts are communicable and intelligible.

All people perceive the world in concepts. We also communicate concepts using conceptual labels called "words." Now, sometimes what we mean by certain words is different than what others mean by the same words. For example, you may assume that car means "any moving vehicle", while I might suppose that car means "a four-wheeled vehicle seating no more than 5 people." Given our different understandings of the word "car" we could reach a misunderstanding or even have a disagreement. This is why semantics matter. In order to communicate a concept you have to ensure that your language is understood by the person you are communicating with. Once both people understand what the other person means by the word "car," all misunderstandings and conflicts are easily averted, because both parties understand the detailed concepts being expressed. The very fact that people are capable of meaningful conceptual communication suggests that people don't live in unique and conceptually different worlds. Even though you and I might mean something somewhat different by "car" or "justice" or "faith," once suitably defined we at least would understand the concept expressed by the other. This illustrates the intelligibility and communicability of concepts, as well as the conceptual continuity that exists from one person to another.

Morality is another conceptual area that quickly reveals the practical impossibilities of conceptual relativism. If morality is completely relative, then for each individual there exists a different moral code. If you believe that murder is okay, and I believe that murder is always wrong, then in a truly relative universe both of our views are equally correct and true. However, in every civilized nation in the world there is a form of law; these laws (at least technically) apply equally to all citizens. When a drug dealer is convicted for trafficking illegal substances, nobody asks him whether dealing drugs is wrong for him. Likewise, when a murderer is convicted for his crime, the justice system does not concern itself with the murderer's moral stance on murder. In a relativistic world, it is only reasonable to punish people for actions which are wrong. And, actions are only wrong if the transgressors believe them to be wrong. Therefore, proper justice would mean that only those murderers who violate their own moral code be subject to the conditions of law, and those murderers who did nothing wrong (since murder is not wrong in their world) should not be punished. Quite obviously, no-one actually believes in complete moral relativity. In fact, when any person accuses another of wrongdoing, they are implicitly stating, "The action that you just committed is intrinsically wrong, and it is equally wrong for all people."

Additionally, we also don't believe in partially relative morality. Many modern moral theorists suggest that morality is just a social construction. Namely, that whatever a society as a whole considers to be right and wrong is treated as right or wrong. However, nobody actually acts in accordance with such a theory. If the social construct theory of morality were followed, then one could only be held accountable for crimes if his own society had determined such actions were wrong. However, if stealing is a morally-acceptable behavior in Tanzania, and a Tanzanian thief steals from America, we would have no legitimate basis for imprisoning him, since he committed no wrong. Therefore, whenever a country tries a foreigner for a violation of local laws that differ from the foreigner's laws, such a country is declaring morality to be universal, at least in some sense. Likewise, if morality is a partially relative manner, then no person has any basis to morally object to the World War II Holocaust. Even though genocide may be wrong in our societies, in Germany, society had agreed that exterminating Jews was a good and necessary thing. Since we don't believe that their actions were morally right, we also don't accept the claim that each society has their own separate, but equally true, moral code.

Additionally, logic itself is incompatible with conceptual relativism. One of the most fundamental laws of logic is the Law of Non-Contradiction. Simply stated, if something is true, then its opposite cannot also be true. For example, if God exists, then it is not logically possible that God also does not exist. Likewise, if my car is red, it is logically impossible for it to be non-red. For this reason, logic clearly reveals that we do not live in a relativistic world. For the sake of the argument, let us suppose that you believe that coffee is the world's only beverage, but you are a relativist, so you only believe that fact concerning your own world (World A). Now, suppose that another person believes that tea is the only beverage, and that it exists as the only drink in his own world (World B) and all other worlds. If relativity is true, then both beliefs must be true, which leaves us with the following conundrum. In World B, tea is the only drink. No problem so far. However, in World A coffee is the only drink and tea is the only drink. This is logically impossible. If coffee is the only drink in World A, then it is necessarily true that no other drinks exist in World A. However, tea exists. Additionally, if tea is the only drink in World A, then it is necessarily true that no other drinks exist in World A. But, coffee exists. The Law of Non-Contradiction means only one of those premises can be true. Therefore, conceptually relativism is logically impossible. This also means that anyone who accepts or uses logic does not really believe in relativism.

Therefore, by common everyday use of words, moral judgments and the use of logic, we have clearly shown several things. First, from semantics we learn it is clear that all people believe that concepts are understandable, communicable and contiguous from one person's world to the next. Secondly, based on moral judgments, we see that people believe that at least some concepts are equally true for all people. Third, concurrence over the laws of logic illustrates that all people believe that some concepts are correct and many are incorrect. All of these practical beliefs are quite incompatible with relativism. Therefore, we can summarize these three points in the common belief that all people live in the same conceptual world, where every concept that is true is true for all people, and every concept that is false, is false for all people.

Though we have only established that people believe some concepts are equally true for all people, I believe that it can reasonably shown that is true for all categories of concepts. To establish that fully would require a very comprehensive paper, which exhaustively examines every possible category of concepts. Obviously, that is beyond the scope of this essay, but I will give a short example to illustrate what I mean. Most Christians believe that Jesus is only way to heaven, and most Muslims believe that submission to Allah is the only path to salvation. Obviously, these are exclusive claims, and followers of each religion are convinced that their conception is correct and that everyone else is either wrong, deceived or confused. Therefore, even though there is disagreement over which concept is correct, every honest person will admit that he believes that his conception is correct and that everyone who holds an opposing conception is wrong. This illustrates that (in the field of religion) every person believes that concepts are universally true or false, and that they are not different from person to person. In a similar manner, I am certain that in whatever conceptual field you examine you will find a similar mindset. Those who are convinced of a concept are also convinced that it is true for all people.

Returning to some earlier questions this essay posed: Does it matter what one believes? How does one decide what to believe? How can one determine which beliefs are accurate and which are not? Is it possible to determine which religions are correct and which are not? What is truth? These questions are quite complex and sufficiently deep enough to warrant another essay. As such, a future essay will explore various issues related to how we know what we know, and how we can determine if it is accurate.

Summary
What then has been established? From the previous essay, A Practical Rejection of Material Relativism, we established that all people trust their sensory experience of the world and that all people believe that others experience the same real world. In this essay, it is clear that all people also believe that not only do we live in the same physical world, but we also live in the same conceptual world. The fact that we live in the same conceptual world means that whatever is true for me is also true for you, since conceptual truth is absolute and constant. Where beliefs conflict or contradict one another, at least one of the of the beliefs is flawed and erroneous. This means that we all believe that, "What's true about the world for me is also true about the world for you because we live in the same real world, even if we disagree over certain concepts."

A Practical Rejection of Material Relativism

The philosophies of Immanuel Kant have influenced the modern mind a great deal. In fact, perhaps he is one of the most influential philosophers of today's postmodern thinking. Kant's theory of the difference between noumena and phenomena, the difference between the world as it appears and the world as it actually exists, has been used to call into question whether we can really trust our senses and whether we perceive the same things that others perceive. In particular, this perceptual skepticism has led to the modern paradigm of relativity.

In its most basic form, modern relativity is a belief that since you see things one way and I see things another way, perhaps the truth is that both views are equally correct and we are just looking at the universe in different ways. A common illustration used is an image of several blind men touching an elephant. One blind man feels the elephant's legs and thinks that the elephant is like a tree. Another feels the elephant's side and thinks that the elephant is like a wall. The third blind man feels the elephant's tail and thinks that the elephant is like a rope. The relativist suggests that perhaps our experience of the world is much like the blind men, that we have different conceptions of the universe and that though we each lack information, perhaps each person's view is equally correct. After all, the elephant is somewhat like a tree, a wall and a rope, although the elephant is certainly more than that. In like manner, the relativist suggests that perhaps each person's experience of the world is true and valid and that all philosophies are correct in so far as they go.

I will not deny that there do exist some real perceptual differences between one person's view of the world and another, especially in abstract conceptual matters. Also, I think that each person's experiences, thoughts and perceptions are of value and are worth learning from. Additionally, I appreciate the humility that stems from a realization of one's own limited knowledge. However, there are some major flaws with relativistic philosophies. For one, relativism is a self-defeating philosophy since it lacks internal consistency. The self-contradicting nature of relativism is certainly a strong argument against such a worldview, but there is a much stronger one. And this is it:

No one actually believes in relativism!

Now, I will readily grant that there are many who claim they believe in relativism, and that it is a very tolerant and open-minded sort of belief. I don't doubt that. However, I do find it quite perplexing that even those who claim to believe in relativism actually don't. Moreover, in this essay I will clearly show you that no rational human being believes in material relativism. In my next essay, I will show you that no rational human being believes in philosophical or conceptual relativism, either. I don't necessarily mean to say that a person couldn't believe in relativism, but I simply seek to show that no person actually does.

Though many people have many diverse beliefs about many things, there are a few things that we all firmly believe in. These things we are so convinced of that we would consider them to be self-evident and wouldn't even characterize them as beliefs. In particular, all people believe the following two things: first, all people believe that their sensory perceptions are trustworthy; second, all people believe that their sensory perceptions of the world are largely similar or identical to the perceptions of others. More simply, we believe that we experience the real world, and that others also experience the same real world.

The first premise that we all trust our sensory perceptions is based on practical, experience-based evidence. For example, as you are reading this, you believe that the words your brain tells you that your eyes are seeing actually exist. You do not for a second consider the unlikely possibility that this essay is simply a figment of your imagination, nor do you suppose that your eyes are misinterpreting reality and that perhaps this essay is actually a photograph or a drawing. Likewise, if you listen to a song on the radio, you do not question the nature of your sonic experience. You firmly believe that your experience of the world is exactly like, or at least mostly like your perception of it. You are completely convinced that you can tell the difference between purple and green, between a car and a cat, between the flavor of a grape and the taste of a grapefruit, between the scent of a flower and the stench of a skunk and between one spoken word and another. Every day, you interact with your world with complete confidence that what you perceive actually exists and that you perceive it correctly. You are completely convinced that if there is some difference between what you perceive and what actually exists, the difference is very small and practically negligible.

The second premise that we all believe that others experience the same world we do is also based or practical, everyday evidence. When children are taught their phonics in preschool and kindergarten, there is no-one who is concerned that what appears to be the letter "C" in my world might look like an "F" in your world. Likewise, we all assume that an object appearing blue will also appear blue to everyone else. If I cook some fresh fish filets over rice, I don't have to worry that my food doesn't exist in your world--of course it does! In a business presentation, I know that the slideshow on the wall exists in everyone's world alike and that the information it contains is equally accessible to all present. When parents tell their kids not to play in the street, the parents are completely convinced that streets do exist in their children's world and that streets are the same sort of thing in their children's world. We all believe that the world and the perceptions we experience are largely similar or identical to others' experience of the world.

How does this relate to relativity? Namely, for material relativity to be true, we must experience different worlds, and both of our worlds must truly exist as experienced by each person. What's true for you, must actually be true for you and what's true for me must actually be true for me. Now, given the above two premises, it is quite clear that nobody believes that we live in different worlds. I believe that the real world I experience is exactly the same as the real world that you experience, even though our perceptions might differ very slightly. The table that exists in my world is the very same table that exists in your world, and it exists as a table and not as a computer, a chair or a couch. The reason that Paris, Washington D.C. and Beijing exist in both my world and yours is not a fluke or coincidence--we live in the same real world!

If this is true, (and obviously everyone believes it to be true and bears witness to such truth by their very actions and words), then it follows that where there are perceptual differences, at least one perception must be incorrect. Returning to the elephant analogy, it is perfectly acceptable to notice a different aspect of the elephant, so long as you are experiencing the elephant. But, if you are touching the side of the elephant and feeling it's tough skin, and I claim to be touching the elephant but say that the elephant feels small and very furry, it is quite apparent that one of us is either lying, confused, or touching a different animal. You would quickly try to correct me or help me to find the elephant that I have obviously missed. Therefore, even the relativist firmly believes that we all live in the same real world, and that since there is an elephant in your world, the same elephant also exists in my world, because it is the same real world.

How then does one account for true perceptual differences? Given that the real worlds exists, there are two different types of perceptual differences possible. First, one may perceive less than actually exists. This would be sensory impairment. Second, one may perceive more than actually exists. This would be a form of hallucination. Let us examine each of these conditions in more depth.

Sensory impairment is a condition where a person experiences less than actually exists. There are numerous forms of this. For examples, I have a brother who is blue-yellow colorblind. To him, certain shades of green are indistinguishable from blue, and certain shades of yellow are indistinguishable from violet. Though he does experience the world as it actually exists, because of his visual impairment he is unable to experience the full range of colors that exist in the world. A completely blind person is unable to experience light in any form. Likewise, a completely deaf person is unable to experience the sounds that exist in the world and can never enjoy aural communication nor delight in hearing music. A sensory-impaired person experiences the world truly but not fully. However, it is certainly clear that though their experience is less than the experience of a normal person, that the world itself still contains whatever sights and sounds the sensory-impaired person is unable to experience.

When one perceives more than actually exists, this is categorized as a hallucination. Often one hears of people who hear voices when there is no-one around who is speaking. There are many drug-induced states that leads people to see people or things that are not actually there. One could possibly hallucinate about something crawling across one's skin or someone touching one's body when no-one is there. In these cases, the person is experiencing something that does not actually exist as a result of a mental disorder or a chemical imbalance. The very diagnosis of such disorders is performed by doctors who can correctly identify what is reality and what is not and can determine what is causing such faulty perceptions.

In both of these cases, we see that when a person experiences more or less than actually exists, the difference is not in the world, but in the observer. And these conditions are not the experience of a different world, but disorders that prevent them from fully recognizing all that is real. As such, perceiving an altered version of the world is a suboptimal condition and is a form of handicap. Therefore, we do see that there are some minor differences in people's perception of the world, but in such cases, at least one person's perception is flawed and suboptimal.

Summary
What then has been shown? We have seen that all people trust their sensory experience of the world and that all people believe that others experience the same real world. Given that there is one real world, any experience that is inconsistent with the world as it actually exists, is a form of distortion. Therefore, we do not believe that all perceptions of the world are equally true or valid. We believe that most sensory perceptions that people have are correct, and that when someone sees more or less than what actually exists, that they are incorrect. In terms of blind men feeling an elephant, all perceptions of various aspects of the elephant are correct as long as one is correctly perceiving the elephant. In other words, we all believe that, "What's true about the world for me is also true about the world for you because we live in the same real world, even if one of our perceptions of it is slightly flawed."