Epistemic relativism: foundations and critical perspectives

Descartes and Relativism

How might a philosopher such as Descartes reply to epistemic relativists such as Barnes and Bloor?

Philosophers who prescribe to the concept of moral and ethical relativism believed that right and wrong choices of any given situation are merely socially constructed and that what people decide fit into either of these categories is determined by the society in which the person lives. Philosophers through the ages have continually disagreed about the fundamental reasoning behind why people behave in the ways that they do. Relativists believe completely that moral standards and thus what constitutes ethical behaviors are relative in that they are socially constructed. What may be appropriate in one culture will not be considered moral or ethical in another social setting.

Descartes' most famous quotation "I think therefore I am" began the trend of philosophers to question truth and whether or not it even exists at all. This is the crux of relativism. Morals and ethics are all socially constructed; what society tells the people are true is accepted as truth by the population. Believing in a set of moral values is what makes those things moral or ethical. There is no innate right or wrong, only the determinations which have been made by the majority society.

Boghossion postulates that there are no absolute facts (73). This is the major argument of all relativists, that there is no such thing as facts and Descartes would very likely agree. What we accept as truth and lie is similar to the moral distinction that is made over right or wrong. The personal logic of an individual, according to the theory of epistemic relativism, stems from their belief system. Whence a thing is first believed it logically dictates the rest of the ways that a person thinks. In terms of Descartes, the belief structure of the individual goes so far as to dictate the identity of the particular individual.

2. What versions of epistemic relativism are subject to the objection that they are "self-defeating?"

The problems with some of the various versions of the philosophy known as epistemic relativism are that they assert that there is nothing that is true nor false, right nor wrong. This is an over simplification of matters because it seems that although morality may be subjective, the concept of truth or falsity seems to be more objective a topic. Whether or not something exists is proof of a fact. If something can be proven to be true or proven to be false, then it does not make sense that this can be labeled as subjective. Under these particular circumstances the epistemic relativists take an interesting concept and push it beyond understandable terms and thus turn the theory into one which could be considered self-defeating.