>But relativists have to believe that no ONE belief is superior to any other.<
Not necessarily, X. There are different kinds of "relativism." The extreme kind that you describe in your post is only one variety.
Let us take another kind -- a kind of relativism in which we all probably indulge, at one time or another. To avoid confusion, it is sometimes called "relationism." The point of it is that the context in which a moral decision is made is all-important.
Let us take a very simple situation. We are taught that it is wrong to lie. And generally speaking, we try to follow that rule. In most situations, it is fairly easy. Suppose, however, that you are a serviceman, and in time of war you are captured by the enemy. You are interrogated about your unit, its plans, etc., etc. Is it okay to lie? I think most of us would say that yes, in that context, it is all right to lie. In fact, it may be your duty to lie.
There are situations that are much more ambiguous, of course. Sometimes each of the available courses of action involves violating one or another moral rule. Then the decision has to be made -- which moral rule is the most important?
In other words, values often are rated relatively; that is, in relation to the context in which they are -- or are not -- applied.
In this sense, it is perfectly possible to be a relativist ("relationist", if you prefer), yet disagree totally with the proposition that anybody's values are "as good as" anybody else's. |
