In the ideal of good feelings and the reign of ultra-gentleness, there is no more room for confrontations, verbal jousts and conflicting points of view. We no longer seek to challenge the adversary through rigorous reasoning which is often lacking, so we capitulate and disguise our argumentative weakness as moral force by closing the debate with a lot of comforting clichés: “to each their own truth”, “all opinions are equal”, “it’s your truth, not mine”, “there is not just one truth”, “everyone has their own point of view” etc. These sentences agreed and repeated by the archons of non-violent communication and their lackeys have ousted the critical spirit in the name of a benevolent neutrality and we listen wisely to the requiem of thought behind this relativism of ideas.
These relativistic refrains go a priori with a good intention, that of not sinking into dogmatism, of putting each position into perspective, of broadening points of view and of showing tolerance, understanding and indulgence. But as often the good is the enemy of the good… And the benefactors who preach this good word do not suspect that beneath the trappings of leniency and open-mindedness, the relativism that they catechize is basically nothing more than ‘an immoral and false absolutism.
Reality is not just an interpretive kaleidoscope
Absolutism firstly because the relativist position has something self-contradictory. “Everything is relative” except the sentence that states it. “All judgments are equal” except the one who claims that all judgments are equal. “There is no truth” except this. Everything is therefore relative except relativism itself, imposed as absolute truth.
False then, because claiming that everything is relative to the point of denying all objective reality is false reasoning which confuses two orders: that of facts and that of the mind. Reality is not just an interpretive kaleidoscope. Let us remember that if the meaning I give to a situation is indeed relative, the facts are independent of my mind. Faced with the same illness, some people will experience it as a dejection, others as a challenge. The meaning differs from person to person. But the disease nevertheless remains an independent and incontestable fact. There is indeed one and only one objective reality even though multiple ways of understanding this reality remain possible. In other words, the relativism of points of view should not abrogate the idea of an objective reality. This is what the history of science teaches us.
In the 17th century, the mathematician Christian Huygens said that light was composed of waves. Isaac Newton later refuted this theory by asserting that light was a stream of particles. Finally, Albert Einstein rejected both theories by showing that light had both wave and particle properties. This is proof that although representations may be multiple, they are not equal. It is also proof that an objective reality exists behind the multiplicity of representations we have of it, since it is this objective reality, the test of the facts, which decides their relevance.
Immoral, finally, because if everything is equal, how can we judge? If I consider a harmful management style in the face of someone who thinks it is legitimate, which of us will be right? In relativist logic, both points of view are valid. Relativism morally neutralizes assessments. No need to evaluate since everyone has their own truth! This axiologically neutral relativism is exactly the opposite of perspectivism which judges and decides based on a comparison of different points of view. Perspectivism is the method used by judges during a trial, or doctors during multidisciplinary consultation meetings, for example. Also, let’s not confuse perspectivism and relativism. Perspectivism objectifies the subjective, relativism subjective the objective. For one, reality exists. For the other, it’s just a point of view. For one, the plurality of opinions is a requirement, for the other, it is an equivalence. If perspectivism is indeed a virtue, relativism is a peril that takes itself for a virtue.
* Julia de Funès is a doctor of philosophy
.