{"id":471,"date":"2012-05-12T17:14:58","date_gmt":"2012-05-12T16:14:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thomascreedy.com\/?p=471"},"modified":"2017-01-18T17:18:26","modified_gmt":"2017-01-18T17:18:26","slug":"guest-post-the-death-of-relativism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thomascreedy.co.uk\/guest-post-the-death-of-relativism\/","title":{"rendered":"Guest Post: The Death of Relativism"},"content":{"rendered":"

Be careful what you wish for: The Death of Relativism<\/em><\/h2>\n

\"\"
\nFor many years, people of strongly held beliefs have attacked the inconsistency and hypocrisy of flabby, late 20th Century relativism. The relativism of recent decades has often led to a widespread apathy about the big questions of life and civilization, and to a lazy (often ignorant) amalgamation of differing opinions. To those with strongly held convictions it was regularly infuriating, and sometimes patronising.<\/p>\n

Relativism is the view that whether something is \u2018true\u2019 or \u2018right\u2019 depends on it\u2019s context: cultural, historical, or personal. It has many good points, but it does lead to a rather condescending attitude to disagreement. By saying \u2018your belief is ok\/true for you\u2019 to a Christian – or a Muslim, Jew or Hindu – you are telling them (implicitly, if unconsciously) that they are wrong, even na\u00efve, to believe that Christianity is literally \u2018true\u2019, and that it would be false in a different context. Indeed, you are claiming to know the nature of their religion better than they do. To take Christianity, this is patently false: either Jesus rose from the dead, proving his claims to divine and saving identity; or he\u2019s still dead, disproving his claims. The Bible says as much (1 Cor 15:17-20).<\/p>\n

So, such relativism is patently false. It\u2019s also dangerous. When Barack Obama visited China in 2009, he challenged Chinese premier Hu Jintao on China\u2019s poor human rights record. President Hu glibly responded by speaking about \u2018mutual respect and non-interference in each other\u2019s internal affairs\u2019 (diplomatic speech for \u2018you can\u2019t tell us what to do\u2019), and told Obama not to try and impose American\/Western values on China. Given China\u2019s recent human rights record, I\u2019m glad Obama ignored this advice.<\/p>\n

Recently, however, there are signs (in the UK) that relativism has died a death. This is, no doubt, what many of belief and conviction have been hoping for – finally people accept that some things are right, and others wrong, and we can have a debate about disagreement without seeming offensive. But be careful what you wish for.<\/p>\n

The \u2018signs\u2019 that relativism has started to be replaced by a more absolutist set of beliefs point to a mixed picture. On the one hand, condemnation of the treatment of women in many countries is admirable, necessary and unquestionable. Relativism wouldn\u2019t allow such a \u2018judgmental\u2019 approach, but we\u2019re now beyond that.<\/p>\n

But, on the other hand, some debates (and views) seem to be banned, in the name of certain, more popular, beliefs. Let me point to two examples. One is a tiny instance of a big problem. The other is a public, nationwide debate of small issue.<\/p>\n

The first is the recent charging of the footballer Luis Suarez for racist abuse. I\u2019m not so interested in whether Suarez himself was guilty or not. Instead I want to look at one detail of the incident. The accusation was that, during a football match, Suarez had repeatedly referred to a black player on the opposite team as \u2018negrito\u2019 (a Spanish word, in the Uruguayan dialect, similar to \u2018negro\u2019). Interestingly, Suarez didn\u2019t deny this. Instead, he pointed out that such a word is not offensive in the Uruguayan dialect, and is an affectionate term, used amongst friends, which doesn\u2019t really translate as \u2018black man\u2019 or \u2018negro\u2019. This was backed up by many Uruguayans, including politicians. The President even declared his full support for Suarez. When he was found guilty, Uruguayan journalists attacked the English FA for their \u2018pseudo-moralism\u2019.<\/p>\n

Whether or not Suarez was guilty, these point seemed worth discussing. After all, in some countries calling someone \u2018dog\u2019 is extremely offensive, in others it\u2019s used amongst friends. Yet, in Britain, this was (with shocking ease) taken as evidence of Uruguay\u2019s national, institutionalised racism. Suarez was found guilty with negligible reference to these important linguistic complexities. The case for the defense was mostly ignored. Relativism might have been a little more cautious.<\/p>\n

Turning to another example, let\u2019s look at the current UK debate about marriage. Again, I\u2019m not going to put forward a view, but I am disappointed how the debate has gone. Officially, there\u2019s a consultation going on about whether to extend \u2018marriage\u2019 to same sex couples. Yet, listen to the Equality Minister, or most debate on the topic, and you discover that there is no discussion. The Equalities Minister says she will make it happen, regardless of what the consultation throws up. Those who offer an opposing view are regularly called bigots and homophobes (often inaccurately), before serious debate can be reached. One MP was sent death threats for supporting the Coalition for Marriage\u00a0– even through this petition has 10 times the signatures of it\u2019s opposite petition. Apparently, some views are more equal than others.<\/p>\n

So, for those of us who hoped that the end of relativism might signal a period when discussion, debate, and – MOST importantly – disagreement could once again be central tenants of liberal, democratic life: were we terribly, terribly wrong? After all, relativism allowed you to say what you thought, even if it thought you were quaint (and wrong) for believing it. I\u2019m starting to get nostalgic already.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Johnny has also written a brilliant piece on Bonhoeffer and Truth<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Be careful what you wish for: The Death of Relativism For many years, people of strongly held beliefs have attacked the inconsistency and hypocrisy of flabby, late 20th Century relativism. The relativism of recent decades has often led to a … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":473,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"kt_blocks_editor_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[87,105,44,73,326],"tags":[357,359,358,94,354,321],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thomascreedy.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/471"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thomascreedy.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thomascreedy.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thomascreedy.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thomascreedy.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=471"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.thomascreedy.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/471\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":475,"href":"https:\/\/www.thomascreedy.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/471\/revisions\/475"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thomascreedy.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/473"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thomascreedy.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=471"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thomascreedy.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=471"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thomascreedy.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=471"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}