Chaos and Contradiction: Applying Personal Relativism to Everyone

Why does defining identity in terms of personal human autonomy conflict with traditional rights to life, freedom, and happiness? Because transcendent human rights are definite, whereas autonomy implies the ability to contradict or reshape human identity arbitrarily, at least for oneself. 

It is popularly thought that everyone singly has the right to determine everything about themselves for themselves. This view seems benign and commonsensical, because this complete autonomy is applied to oneself. I’d like to present a couple reasons this view is nonsense and unsafe. 

Is it possible that a person be wrong about her view of her own identity? Is the person who thinks herself a potato just as true as someone who thinks herself a person? Self-evidently not, but Identity defined solely in terms of autonomy doesn’t allow the possibility that a person can be wrong about herself. 

Furthermore, how can a person live in a society with other people if there really is no generally understood reality about who people are and how they should be treated? Would you treat this hypothetical woman as a potato or vegetable even if she considers herself that way? The maxim of finding identity through one’s constant self-definition (autonomy) quickly imposes itself on others if it were to be lived out. 

This autonomy assumes relativism, which quickly self-refutes. Relativism says whatever each says about herself is true. Relativism, however, is one of the claims people make about themselves. Relativism–by nature of being a claim about reality–claims to apply to everyone. Hence, if truth is limited to the individual, then relativism ceases to be a theory about reality, and self-refutes. It cannot possibly be true.

Additionally, personal relativism also leads to inherent contradictions. The views that “Woman 1 is a human” and “Woman 2 is a potato,” are both true self-views if personal relativism is true. But there is a contradiction, given that both women have the same [human] nature, and given that humans and potatoes have a different nature. Therefore, personal relativism is false. Merely acting that a falsehood is true does not change the consequences. 

But there’s the rub. What happens when people try to enforce personal relativism? Contradiction will naturally result, so if further pressure is applied, some people’s views will be enforced but not others’. The prevailing view will not be oriented toward truth. The prevailing view will be disoriented. The enforcement of personal relativism would intensify the chaos by creating “noise” that would distract from reality and blur what would otherwise be obviously true. 

If the chaos could be extended to enough youth and pre youth, perhaps the chaos--which would normally be obvious to the next generation--could perpetuate or even grow in new unpredictable ways through generations. So even though relativism remains false and people would retain their human nature, that nature would be in tension with the way people train themselves through thinking and practice.  

 It seems so innocent and commonsensical to think that no one should be allowed to interfere with the way others self identify. It seems so much like respect and many would call it tolerance. But in reality it assumes relativism and is self refuting. People who try to force everyone not to interfere with the way others self identify interfere with the way others self identify. Those who try to enforce relativism do the very things they say not to do. Relativists cannot do otherwise.


__________________

Additional Notes:

 + When I speak of nature being in tension with our training, nature is assumed to be separate from the trained perceptions in the individual, similar to how a computer virus doesn’t eliminate the nature of the computer even if it leaves the software torn to pieces. + It seems like many today pursue a vision of creating a new human nature, and relativism opens the door for genetic experimentation on half humans, new human species, etc. Should we pursue this or do we already have enough information to focus our efforts elsewhere? Perhaps an idea worth exploring is whether any deprivation could properly be considered a new “nature”. This seems logical if goodness [inherently] is fullness of being. If this is true, as I’ve heard argued before, then it will be impossible for humanity to create a new [human-like] nature by these means. If we don’t consider philosophy, many will probably infer no limit to scientific advances--since they haven’t properly considered categories--and support horrific research abominations in the name of science. 

+ Perhaps the noise that disables people from hearing truth is reminiscent of what some poets talk about regarding the noise of hell versus the harmony of heaven.

+ Respect and tolerance are only worth talking about if they exist as positive virtues, but virtues don’t have any definite existence in a relativistic world. They can’t because there’s nowhere for moral objectivity to fit in, if everything is self-determined. Nothing could objectively answer the question, why prefer respect and tolerance to disrespect and intolerance?