BY WILL GLOVINSKY

In print | Published February 5, 2009

The other night a friend and I were up late working. He was reading A Theory of Justice and suddenly made a pejorative comment about John Rawls’ lurching relativism.

“He just won’t commit to his theory!” he exclaimed.

I looked up and knew that I would need to shelve my work for at least half an hour. You see, I consider myself a relativist. I’m into multiple moral systems; I don’t believe one can say that someone’s actions or morals contradict any singular universal truth or law. I explained this position to my friend, who then asked what alternative moral mandate you could invoke if your actions were deemed to be inconsistent with a universal truth.

(As tempting as it is to relate this all in dialogue form, replete with one-sided questioning and endless affirmations, I will now allow my friend to gracefully exit the column. His fine question, however, helpfully remains.)

Now, my answer is admittedly a little dull, but I simply don’t believe our actions require grand consistency with some intangible universal law. We can fight genocide, autocracy and abuses of human rights without invoking one universal truth that dominates our beliefs. For instance, female circumcision is clearly a ghastly practice and it is one that I think can be condemned by relativism — it simply is, with the acknowledgment of relativity.

In a situation that demands action, one can personally (or a group can collectively) believe that action is imperative without invoking universal morality. If two beliefs are mutually exclusive and you believe you are compelled by morality to try to stop someone else from doing something, then you will do so not with the banner of “Universal Policeman” but with the humble attitude of a person trying to do the right thing as you see you it.

Relativism and universalism, then, sometimes arrive at the same conclusions, but the path taken is significantly different. First of all, universal truth smugly draws a line between you and your moral opponent, as though your opponent’s dissonance with this supposed truth diminishes him to an almost subhuman level. Is that really necessary?

Further, relativism emphasizes the need to judiciously consider the prudence of a strong action before taking it. Whereas universalism simply implies the obligation of the believer to automatically act in accordance with one single truth, relativism requires the extra step of also believing that, in a given situation, action may or may not be absolutely necessary. Such restraint is quite valuable.
But why do I use my humble Phoenix perch to ramble on about these abstractions? There are two reasons. First, I am very hopeful that President Obama’s foreign policy will swing away from Bush’s Axis of Evil universalism toward a more nuanced and respectful tone that reflects the best characteristics of relativistic policy. That does not mean we must reject our proclaimed self-evident truths, but rather that we must remember that the Founders placed a big, fat “We hold” qualifier in front of those truths when they penned the Declaration of Independence. (That famous sentence, in fact, is a fine balance between the two ideologies.)

The second reason is to discuss a pitfall that may trip up such relativism. One of the nice things about Universalism is that it doesn’t leave anybody out. Even if a particular culture’s inclusion is, in fact, involuntary, the Universalist writes it in with the vague notion that they’ll thank him later. Relativism, on the other hand, actually ends up being more explicitly hegemonic. The relativist can only throw up his hands and say, “Look, this is how we see it. Tough luck.”

To return to a previous issue, then, how does one diplomatically and respectfully enforce something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? The treatment of women in Islamic theocracies is a well-worn example of this problem. My answer would be to avoid alienating rhetoric and to patiently look for compromises. Concessions can be bought with good will and understanding, whereas calling a culture uncivilized, immoral or inhumane is sure to backfire.

So let’s give relativism a chance.

Will is a first-year. He can be reached at wglovin1@swarthmore.edu.

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »