Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air

When I have taught first semester introductory philosophy in the past, along with standard works for classroom use (excerpts from Platonic dialogues and Aristotelian treatises) I would assign short essays to be written with chapters from some of Peter Kreeft's books as jumping-off points (such as "The Unaborted Socrates" or "Between Heaven and Hell" or "The Best Things in Life"). I would do this because Kreeft is stupendous at demolishing the absurdly illogical relativism that brainwashed entering freshmen espouse. (The high school leftist teachers do a great job of turning these kids into zombies who fit well in our decadent culture awash in immorality and its rationalizations.) But by the end of my course many of the students, now thinking for the first time in their lives, have changed their minds against nonsensical relativistic regurgitations (like "whatever works for you" or "your truth is not my truth" or "who's to say what's true?" -- variations of "all opinions are equally valid"). However, with this outstandingly logical book by Beckwith and Koukl now available, I think that if I get an opportunity in the future to teach introductory philosophy, I will probably use "Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly in Mid-Air" as my choice for outside-the-classroom writing assignments. The book is worthy of Kreeft!

This book impressed me. Some of the other reviews give the impression that the book is very shallow or is not substantive. I disagree. The book accomplishes its task admirably. The authors seek to show that moral relativism is false, the consequences of moral relativism and that moral objectivism is true. I note that the author is indebted to the book Principia Ethica by G.E. Moore for some of his ideas.Definitions:moral relativism: "The view that when it comes to moral issues there are no universal objective right or wrong answers, no inappropriate or appropriate judgments, and no reasonable or rational ways by which to make distinctions that apply in every time, in every place and to every person." (page 12-13)moral objectivism: The view that when it comes to moral issues, there ARE universal right or wrong answers, inappropriate or appropriate judgments, and reasonable or rational ways by which to make distinctions that apply in every time, in every place and to every person (this is a composite of the view point the author's offer and defend)The authors argue that people know that there are morally objective rules by intuition. This may be misunderstood to be a whim or emotion. The author's give an example of another thing that is known by intuition: "My hand is injured," I say "How do you know it's injured?" you ask. "Because it hurts." "How do you know it hurts?" "Because I feel it." "But how do you know you feel it." "I just know..." (pages 57-58; please note the last line is a summary of the author's further explanation)I think the author's provided a devastating critique of various different forms of relativism. The different forms they attacked were: Society Does Relativism (i.e. cultural or descriptive relativism), Society Says Relativism (i.e. conventionalism or normative ethical relativism), I Say Relativism (i.e. individual ethical relativism or ethical subjectivism). The terms in brackets are the formal philosophical names for these positions; the other terms are not technical but do aid in remembering the different types. To make an observation about the first type, it just means that different cultures basically disagree on morality (the authors change this idea itself as does C.S. Lewis in his book, ?The Abolition of Man.?). However, however moral disagreement (if it is granted) does not lead one to the conclusion there are no moral rules. That would be like saying because people get math question like 2+2 wrong that there is no right answer.The authors also describe the impact of relativism in public education (i.e. values clarification), law and on several controversial moral issues (i.e. abortion, same-sex marriage/homosexuality and euthanasia). On the last set of issues, it was interesting to learn that the permissibility of these actions in popular American culture essentially rests on two principles: absolute personal autonomy and ethical subjectivism. This means two things: (1) I am free to do *anything* I want and (2) Wh

The authors have done a great job in exposing the inconsistent nature of relativistic thinking. They point out that relativism has taken hold in a society (ours) that is unable to critically examine itself, and where self-interest and pleasure shape ethical decisions. Many relativists like to pass themselves off as tolerant and neutral folk (tolerant of everyone except those who hold an absolutist viewpoint, that is), but as Beckwith and Koukl point out, "the only place of true neutrality is silence". Throughout the book they explain the self-refuting nature of relativism; that is, it's merely absolutism in sheep's clothing. This book will be valuable for anyone looking to stand against the flood of subjectivism that currently rules the societal roost (mixed metaphors notwithstanding).

So often in the past I have found myself powerless to communicate why another person's assertions made little or no sense -- sometimes I couldn't even put my finger on why their statements were wrong -- but this book has shown me how to spot the numerous errors inherent in moral relativism and contend for truth, or at least, get the other person thinking about his or her beliefs. A 'must read' for every thinking person. I can't wait to see what Mr. Beckwith and Mr. Koukl will teach us next!