It's all relative!
I hear this phrase quite often. I've seen it used in lots of arguments regarding a variety of subjects from physics, politics, sports etc. I am also using this phrase when I want to point the relations between two subjects and how one reacts to a change in other.
What does it really mean for something to be relative?
First and foremost comes the principle of causality. Cause and effect implies a relationship. Thus the two are relative. This is simple enough. Used in the context of human relations, to be relative with someone means kinship. While the phrase is used in a wide range of arguments and has actual meaning, I believe that in a certain area of though this phrase has nearly no meaning at all and more than than, it can actually be pretty misleading if not used in the proper sense.
That area is the area of ontological ethics.
Ontology ( from the Greek words -όντος and -λόγος ) is the metaphysical study of the nature of things, the study of being. Ethics ( from the Greek word -ήθος ) is the sum of human conducts and their values. It can also be defined as the body of knowledge that deals with moral arguments. The ethics of a person, simply speaking, is synonymous with his morality and every human person has his own unique morality.
I make the following case.
In a person the capability to be moral is developed. A newborn does not come into this world with a predetermined set of values thus a baby possesses minimal morality. When this capability starts developing, a person is then able to influence it, personal choice also comes into effect. A person's morality is then defined as ''good' or ''bad'' according to the person's deeds, conducts, behavior and actions. Thus, the characterization ''good'' or ''bad'' is strictly relative to the deeds, actions of the person. This relation between morality and facts is crucial
Let us consider now the facts ( actions, conducts etc. ) and take two cases.
In the first case, if facts themselves are relative to the characterizations, one can easily conclude that there is no stable basis under which we can consider something as ''good'' or ''bad'' in relation only to itself. If this is true, then morality simply becomes, as a concept, no different than character simply because then it reflects only personal opinion in relation to facts which are also themselves not tied to the designations ''good'' or ''bad''. Here we see that the meaning of the characterizations ''good'' or ''bad'' is subverted and we can never reach an absolute conclusion. Let's consider the following example. Two persons share exactly the same moral values and they do exactly the same actions. If the first case stands correct, then, there is a chance, where while they do exactly the same things under the same frame of reference, they are both characterized differently. Actions and designations are relational to each other it is easily assumed that it is the relation that gives the meaning ''good'' or ''bad'' to the facts. Since there are two persons, we are considering also two relations ( even though the frames of reference are identical ). Thus it is easy to assume that there is no fixed outcome when it comes to the final designation of their actions. This is quite paradoxical.
In the second case, facts bear themselves the designations ''good'' or ''bad''. Facts are not relational to the designations as they are already bearing the notions themselves. Thus there can be established a solid relation between morality, facts and designations without recourse to an obscure relationship between facts and the notions of ''good'' or ''bad''. Considering again the example in case one, there can be no paradox here as every time the two persons do the same thing the designation is always the same. I strongly believe that this is the true case!
In my previous post, Moral assertions and sense perception, I tried to give a simple definition of morality and how do people perceive it. Check it out if you enjoyed reading this article!
Thank you for reading!!!
