Relativism is the concept that no point of view of has any absolute value. Values and norms are therefore relative to each person meaning that everyone has their own unique set of moral rules. According to Kelsen, although everyone has their own sets of morals and values, laws can still be created.
When someone disagrees with your value claim, you should not just settle with acknowledging that you all have differing opinions; instead, you should argue for your value claim. Not defending your claim is evidence that it is not something that you truly believe in. When you make an argument for your claim (beginning with the similarities between the two), the most reasonable claim will be adopted by both parties. When applied to societies, the claim that is reasonable to the most people become the basis for the creation of laws.
This idea is similar to a conclusion we reached previously in a discussion about human rights: if you're arguing with a rational being, you can prove rights universal. Both concepts agree that reasonable beings can come to a consensus that something is or is not right. If that is the case, then isn't there an absolute value that all rational agents share?
People can come to a consensus on what a society must do because of the similar conclusions different grounding norms can come to. Yes there are people that have the same or almost the same grounding norm (like people who follow the same religion very closely, for instance) but that doesn't mean everyone else can't agree.
ReplyDeleteIt was like Dr. J said in class, religions have different beliefs, but they all have some sort of prayer. Because of this, they have the right to pray according to how they choose in a society.
I think the reason there are things all reasonable people can agree on regardless of different grounding norms is that while these norms, may be different, all sets of values arise from the same place, which is the psychological need of humans to make sense of the world and how to go about living.
ReplyDelete