We are living in a society heavily influenced by liberalism, which embraces human happiness, freedom of choice and opinion. The need for open-mindedness - respect towards other choice, opinion, taste, culture, religion, etc - flows naturally. However, as the word has become commonplace, many people have lost sense of its actual meaning. They exercise something called relativism.

What is relativism?

Relativism means respecting everyone’s ideas and opinions equally. Right and wrong depend on personal situations, so basically there is no right or wrong. Relativists usually apply relativism widely to all areas and aspects of life. They call it open-mindedness and label everyone else who doesn’t have such “open-mindedness” closed-minded. Let’s take an example. Let’s say a physicist states that the Earth is a globe, while an uneducated person insists that it is flat. A relativist will settle the matter by declaring that, since it is a matter of personal opinion, no one is right or wrong, and we should respect both ideas equally.

Why is it dangerous?

I will, with no reservation, state that relativism is detrimental to the advance of human knowledge. It reduces human intellect to that of baboons, which is certainly the case of the relativists. So, how have we advanced as a species? Do we respect equally every idea, theory, hypothesis, however groundless and nonsense? No. We have advanced by exercising our critical facility, examining different hypotheses for consistency, conducting experiments to test them, making them explicit for discussion and reconciliation. Relativism, by declaring everything true and acceptable, makes any kind of discussion impossible. There is nothing more to discuss, because every attempt at the truth is an attempt to favor one opinion over another, an attempt of a closed-minded person.

In addition, relativism is also dangerous to human society by respecting and nourishing fundamentalism. Should we, living in the 21st century, respect groundless religious ideas proposed by ancient primitive persons thousands of years ago? Those are ideas that, in some ways of interpretation, promote suicide bombing to kill heretics (Islam), or prevent sex education and any use of contraception to discourage sex (Christianity)? I’m not sure how people with common sense would think, but I’m sure the relativists would find those acceptable and beneficial to human freedom and happiness.

Humans have a tendency to conserve mental energy by falling back to a default option. Relativism does just that. It can be considered the panacea for all matters that require human judgement, from moral issues to natural phenomena. The relativists would ask, quite reasonably, why they should expend their precious energy and resources, which can be used for sex, food gathering or mindless entertainment, into that useless human endeavour of thinking and judging.

Open-mindedness in the age of relativism

What does open-mindedness mean? How can we distinguish it from stupid relativism? Open-mindedness means willingness to listen to differing ideas or opinions, discussing them and deciding whether they are desirable, true or partly true. Only by making our judgement and assumptions explicit can we have a ground for mutual understanding and critical discussion. When I say that you are free to hold your opinion, it doesn’t mean that I should respect it without any arguments provided. It means that you can state it explicitly, together with your arguments, and I am free to examine it, agree with it or refute it, or decide that only part of it is true. If your arguments are groundless, your evidence is insufficient, but you still insist on holding your opinion, then I am free to conclude that I should respect your opinion no more than that of a baboon.

Of course, talking about open-mindedness, it is important to distinguish between opinion and taste. Opinions or beliefs, especially those about the objective world, can be tested, corroborated or refuted. Taste, in contrast, is subjective. People have different preferences for food, music, sexual partners, etc. Statements about taste such as “I like Japanese food” are neutral and are neither right or wrong. Those usually can be taken as is and need no further examination. The point is, people mostly discuss matters that are either opinion or belief, and those are open for discussion. A slight modification such as “I think that Japanese food is healthy” is a statement of opinion. What is good for individuals, families, societies is a belief. What should be done or avoided is an opinion. Treating those as statements about taste is, again, stupid relativism.

Should taste not be examined?

An important part of liberalism is exercising freedom to pursue happiness without affecting others. Therefore, even though there is no right or wrong about taste, if your taste affects mine or others’ freedom, I am free to raise my concern. For example, you may like Japanese or Indian or Chinese or Western or Mexican food and there is no problem with that. But if you find that shit is delicious, then I might express my concern that having such preference is detrimental to your well-being, and that you should visit a doctor to check whether there is a problem with your taste buds. If you are determined to open a restaurant chain selling shit, then I might express my concern about the erosion of tradition and culture, about the possibility of an unknown epidemic affecting human taste buds. Thus, to avoid falling into the relativism trap, we should ask whether the act of following one’s taste might have any negative effects on others.

Conclusion

Judging is an automatic mental process. There is no stop to making a judgement. When someone states an opinion, we will automatically decide whether it is right or wrong, consistent or not with our system of beliefs. The important thing is to make that judgement explicit, examine our and their assumptions, discuss to find out what is right or wrong or consistent and what is closer to the truth. It is the process that I will commit to, in order to advance as a human being. I will accept the risk of being called closed-minded, but never the risk of being an agreeable but primitive relativist.