Relativist fallacy
Encyclopedia
The relativist fallacy, also known as the subjectivist fallacy, is claiming that something is true for one person but not true for someone else. The fallacy is supposed to rest on the law of non-contradiction. The fallacy applies only to objective facts, or what are alleged to be objective facts, rather than to facts about personal tastes or subjective experiences, and only to facts regarded in the same sense and at the same time. On this formulation, the very name "relativist fallacy" begs the question
against anyone who earnestly (however mistakenly or not) holds that there are no "objective facts." So some more work has to be done, in a non-question-begging way, to make it clear wherein, exactly, the fallacy lies.
There are at least two ways to interpret "the relativist fallacy": either as identical to relativism
(generally), or as the ad hoc
adoption of a relativist stance purely to defend a controversial position.
On the one hand, those discussions of the relativist fallacy which make the fallacy out to be identical to relativism (e.g., linguistic relativism
or cultural relativism
) are themselves committing a commonly-identified fallacy of informal logic, namely, begging the question against an earnest, intelligent, logically-competent relativist. It is itself a fallacy to describe a controversial view as a "fallacy"—not, at least, without arguing that it is a fallacy. In any event, it will not do to argue as follows:
This is an example of circular reasoning
. The second step includes an argument from fallacy
.
On the other hand, if someone adopts a simple relativist stance as an ad hoc defense of a controversial or otherwise compromised position—saying, in effect, that "what is true for you is not necessarily true for me," and thereby attempting to avoid having to mount any further defense of the position—one might be said to have committed a fallacy. The accusation of having committed a fallacy might rest on either of two grounds: (1) the relativism on which the bogus defense rests is so simple and meritless that it straightforwardly contradicts the Law of Non-Contradiction; or (2) the defense (and thus the fallacy itself) is an example of ad hoc reasoning. It puts one in the position of asserting or implying that truth or standards of logical consistency are relative to a particular thinker or group and that under some other standard, the position is correct despite its failure to stand up to logic.
On any interpretation of the fallacy, in determining whether the relativist fallacy has been committed, one should distinguish between things which are true for a particular person, and things which are true about that person. Take, for example, the statement proffered by Jim, "More Americans than ever are overweight." One may introduce arguments for and against this proposition, based upon such things as standards of statistical analysis, the definition of "overweight," etc. It is a position which answers to objective logical debate. If Joe answers Jim, saying "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me," he has given an answer which is fallacious as well as being somewhat meaningless in the context of Jim's original statement.
Conversely, take the new statement by Jim, who is 5 in 6 in (1.68 m) tall, "270 pounds (122.5 kg) is grossly overweight." Joe, who is 6 in 6 in (1.98 m), and weighs an exact, well-conditioned 270 pounds (122.5 kg), replies, "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me." In this context, Joe's reply is both meaningful and arguably accurate. As he is discussing something which is true about himself, he is not barred from making an argument which considers subjective facts, and so he does not commit the fallacy.
Begging the question
Begging the question is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise....
against anyone who earnestly (however mistakenly or not) holds that there are no "objective facts." So some more work has to be done, in a non-question-begging way, to make it clear wherein, exactly, the fallacy lies.
There are at least two ways to interpret "the relativist fallacy": either as identical to relativism
Relativism
Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration....
(generally), or as the ad hoc
Ad hoc
Ad hoc is a Latin phrase meaning "for this". It generally signifies a solution designed for a specific problem or task, non-generalizable, and not intended to be able to be adapted to other purposes. Compare A priori....
adoption of a relativist stance purely to defend a controversial position.
On the one hand, those discussions of the relativist fallacy which make the fallacy out to be identical to relativism (e.g., linguistic relativism
Sapir–Whorf hypothesis
The principle of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects the ways in which its speakers are able to conceptualize their world, i.e. their world view...
or cultural relativism
Cultural relativism
Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture. This principle was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and...
) are themselves committing a commonly-identified fallacy of informal logic, namely, begging the question against an earnest, intelligent, logically-competent relativist. It is itself a fallacy to describe a controversial view as a "fallacy"—not, at least, without arguing that it is a fallacy. In any event, it will not do to argue as follows:
- To advocate relativism, even some sophisticated relativism, is to commit the relativist fallacy.
- If one commits a fallacy, one says something false or not worth serious consideration.
- Therefore, to advocate relativism, even some sophisticated relativism, is to say something false or not worth serious consideration.
This is an example of circular reasoning
Circular reasoning
Circular reasoning, or in other words, paradoxical thinking, is a type of formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For example:"Only an untrustworthy person would run for office...
. The second step includes an argument from fallacy
Argument from fallacy
Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false...
.
On the other hand, if someone adopts a simple relativist stance as an ad hoc defense of a controversial or otherwise compromised position—saying, in effect, that "what is true for you is not necessarily true for me," and thereby attempting to avoid having to mount any further defense of the position—one might be said to have committed a fallacy. The accusation of having committed a fallacy might rest on either of two grounds: (1) the relativism on which the bogus defense rests is so simple and meritless that it straightforwardly contradicts the Law of Non-Contradiction; or (2) the defense (and thus the fallacy itself) is an example of ad hoc reasoning. It puts one in the position of asserting or implying that truth or standards of logical consistency are relative to a particular thinker or group and that under some other standard, the position is correct despite its failure to stand up to logic.
On any interpretation of the fallacy, in determining whether the relativist fallacy has been committed, one should distinguish between things which are true for a particular person, and things which are true about that person. Take, for example, the statement proffered by Jim, "More Americans than ever are overweight." One may introduce arguments for and against this proposition, based upon such things as standards of statistical analysis, the definition of "overweight," etc. It is a position which answers to objective logical debate. If Joe answers Jim, saying "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me," he has given an answer which is fallacious as well as being somewhat meaningless in the context of Jim's original statement.
Conversely, take the new statement by Jim, who is 5 in 6 in (1.68 m) tall, "270 pounds (122.5 kg) is grossly overweight." Joe, who is 6 in 6 in (1.98 m), and weighs an exact, well-conditioned 270 pounds (122.5 kg), replies, "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me." In this context, Joe's reply is both meaningful and arguably accurate. As he is discussing something which is true about himself, he is not barred from making an argument which considers subjective facts, and so he does not commit the fallacy.
See also
- Formal fallacyFormal fallacyIn philosophy, a formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning that is always wrong. This is due to a flaw in the logical structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid...
- Informal fallacyInformal fallacyAn informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises fail to support their proposed conclusion. The deviation in an informal fallacy often stems from a flaw in the path of reasoning that links the premises to the conclusion...