Harmon's Version of Relativism

¶ … relativism as discussed by Gilbert Harmon. The writer of this paper uses a published article by Harmon to showcase his ideas about inner judgments and the basis for morality as well as other aspects of relativism. The writer also explores the cornerstones of Harmon's defense of sophisticated form of moral relativism. There was one source used to complete this paper. Throughout history the theory of relativism has been debated in many circles.

Some believe that relativism is a term that means nothing because it does not exist, while others believe it goes back to the basics of human nature. One expert believes that relativism can be discussed in its logical form and has explored his ideas about the sophisticated form of moral relativism (Harmon, 1975). Gilbert Harmon is well-known for his exploration of the theory of relativism and according to Harmon relativism is intricately tied to society's sophisticated evolvement in the area of morality.

Harmon explores the motivating factors and the decisions that go into creating judgments as well as the elements he believes determine the current relativism definition that he has created (Harmon, 1975). Harmon's views Gilbert Harmon, a renowned professor of philosophy at Princeton University and has devoted years to the study of society from a philosophical perspective. In one of his publications, Harmon explores the topic of relativism and its foundational basis (Harmon, 1975).

Harmon uses his essay to examine and explain the elements he believes contribute to his beliefs and also addresses the theory with a mathematical styled formula that resembles algebraic equations (Harmon, 1975). Harmon draws down the theory to its most basic form and then puts it into language that is easily understood regardless of the reader's inclination to agree or disagree with the theory itself (Harmon, 1975). Harmon believes that morality is nothing more than an agreement within a group of people.

That group can be large or small but for the purpose of this discussion he addresses large groups such as societies (Harmon, 1975). According to Harmon morality exists when a group of people believe that something is a wrong behavior. If the group that the behavior is to be judged by does not agree by general consensus that the behavior is unacceptable then the behavior is not wrong (Harmon, 1975).

This is deduced by Harmon's belief that the morality of a group arises only when the group comes to an agreement that the behavior or behaviors is wrong. He further explores this idea by discussing the acts of Adolph Hitler during the Holocaust (Harmon, 1975).

Harmon believes that Hitler had no sense that his actions were wrong, and while societal moral agreement had every right to declare Hitler's actions as evil and barbaric, for Hitler himself, who apparently did not see anything wrong with his actions, he was not in any moral violation (Harmon, 1975). Hitler is an example according to Harmon of how not having an internal sense of what society has agreed to and agreeing with it there is no moral wrong (Harmon, 1975).

Harmon's theory believes that the person who is committing the act in question has to agree with the group's belief that the behavior is wrong, otherwise it may be wrong by the group standards but by the individual who does not agree it is wrong is not breaking any moral standard (Harmon, 1975). If one wanted to place Harmon's idea into a more understandable form one could examine the laws that are designed to protect the rights of mentally retarded people when it comes to crime.

If a person commits a crime, whether it is murder, or robbery or anything else, that person has to be of the mind to understand that they committed a moral violation by societal standards that they agree with (Harmon, 1975). Someone who is severely mentally retarded, or has a severe mental illness is often declared unable by the courts to be able to understand the moral faux paux that they committed (Harmon, 1975).

Because they do not believe or understand that their actions are wrong or bad they cannot be held responsible according to the laws of the land. This is very similar to Harmon's explanation of how morality is a group agreement and one must believe in the group agreement for one to understand that one has broken the moral agreement. Harmon believes that morality and ideas themselves are simply relative to other similar ideas. He uses the example of a large dog compared to a Chihuahua (Harmon, 1975).

The large dog when compared to the Chihuahua is considered to be very big, but if one compares it to dogs in general it is not so big. This is the same way that morality works which makes it all relative.

If the rule or moral guideline is considered to be bad in a small group it then appears to be bad, but if it is then compared to a much larger group in which not many believe the behavior is immoral the behavior begins to look less "bad" or evil according to Harmon (Harmon, 1975). Harmon explores the concept of sophisticated conventionalism too.

Using the example of aliens visiting who belong to an advanced society that does not feel human life is worthwhile, the killing of humans, from the alien standpoint means nothing which means it is not immoral (Harmon, 1975). One can compare this to the fact that humans smash bugs with their shoe rather then let them run freely about the house. Humans feel nothing is morally wrong with the killing of a bug, because the group (society) has never come to an agreement that it is morally wrong to do so.

If aliens from another planet had developed to the point that humans seemed of little more value than insects are to current society, then the murdering of humans could not be considered morally wrong (Harmon, 1975). This would be in tune with Harmon's theory of sophisticated forms of conventionalism and it also dovetails with his logical form that he applies to the theory of moral relativism. Harmon uses this scenario to move more closely to a possible current societal event.

According to Harmon cannibals who capture and eat a ship wreck survivor may be labeled as savage, or of wild moral values when compared to civilized society but rarely will someone say they were morally wrong to eat the man. Society accepts the fact that morals arise from a group agreement and accepts the idea that some groups have agreed to a different set of acceptable behaviors for their moral barometer. Harmon bridges this theory to.