Similarities And Differences Between Relativism And Natural Law
In our daily behaviors we usually limit the actions. Lacking some control of reality, we usually talk about relativism. Everything is relative, we affirm except for what is absolute. They say that any thesis that denies the possibility of the existence of a universal and objective truth that transcends historical, social, cultural or personal conditioning is relativistic. On the other hand, Natural Law is the most viable reference point where human rights were designed, which from the natural and logical point of view of society seeks to protect natural rights from abuses such as racism, slavery, and abuse of power. There are a lot of differences and similarities between relativism and natural law such as what is considered morally right and wrong varies from one society to another so there are no universal moral standards.
Relativism postulates that there are only provisional or relative truths, given the impossibility for man to reach definitive or absolute truths, whatever the field in which we move. Therefore, it could be defined as a mitigated form of skepticism: at most one could speak of each other's preferences, of opinions, but not of truths that are imposed on everyone by their own evidence. Being relativistic means having no convictions: it is the death of the person. Who lacks convictions does not take anything seriously. For this person, things are worthless. They only have a price and are interchangeable: things and people. But the truth, as the event narrated in the classroom shows, is that respect for freedom is nourished by firm convictions. Furthermore, Natural rights are represented by the most trivial: feed, live together, develop skills, reproduction, the creation of the family, everything that society dictates as correct. However, a Deviation in the use of these rights may cause a variation in the ability of society to face this behavior.
Relativism can be understood, in general terms, as the theory that maintains that ethics does not have an objective character, but that good and evil depend on the opinion of each one. There are few who think that this way of understanding moral life implies, in reality, the absence of heteronomous impositions in determining what is right and what is wrong, therefore, greater doses of freedom in the ethical field. In another place, since man has knowledge of himself, he has had his own way of life, so the law is born, even if he has no knowledge that it is applied, it is being used, since everything touring in the environment is right, everything is adjusted to the law, so it is not written, but the fact of regulating becomes law, in this way, that natural law originates, which is basically the set of principles that invariably inspires human nature and that are taken as the basis for formulating some legal concepts in different legal systems or orders.
One of the most relevant cases is homosexuality, which completely interrupts the natural precept of reproduction, because when two people of the same sex have sex, they cannot procreate a child. Of course, free will allows the human being to do what he pleases with his body, however, thanks to this, the rights come and go according to the nature of each person. According to natural law that is arbitrary to the human being because people of the same sex cannot have children, but in the case of relativism people agree that people of the same sex can be together. It all depends from what point each Society sees each case.
Relativism is not, strictly speaking, a doctrine, since it is not possible to be relativistic until the last consequences. Relativism is a suicidal theory: when it applies to itself, it kills itself. Thus, for example, strictly speaking, one is not relativistic with respect to experimental science and technology, nor in relation to certain essential norms of justice and civility. With an incongruity in which not everyone repairs, relativism is restricted to ethics, where no truth or lie is recognized, only feelings. Hence the new categorical imperative of not imposing one's morals on others.
Natural law maintains that there is a human nature that is the basis of human sciences and also of the legal system. Philosophers and jurists in favor of natural law as a general model that inspires concrete laws understand that human nature has universal principles and values and, consequently, no law can go against natural law. Not all jurists assume the existence of a natural right, such as the positivist Hans Kelsen, although since ancient times it was proposed by Roman law, influenced by Greek thought, which recognized it together with the law of people (which ruled between the peoples, as a common right to all) and Civil law (APA). In Ancient Rome, Natural Law was considered as that imposed by nature and that it was possible to be instinctively captured by both men and animals.
On the other hands what leads to intolerance is not in itself the belief that there are truths, but not to hold one: that it is immoral to violate consciences. When this principle is respected, then there is a consistent criterion to limit tolerance. Relativism, in addition to not justifying well the need to limit tolerance, does not vaccinate against intolerance. The reasoning that has led to fostering relativism, after World War II, suffers from a diagnostic error: totalitarian ideologies impose the reason of State - or race, or class - because previously they deeply relativize ethics. One of the rules is ‘human nature guide’ has traditionally been formulated like this: Do good and avoid evil. Not an evil and an external and strange good to us, but our best good, avoiding what harms us: doing good and avoiding evil is a positive invitation for each one to make of himself the best of the possible projects. That is the moral norms, which aim to establish some channels for which freedom chooses in such a way that it contributes to natural ends and tendencies. Ethics studies how and in what way moral standards are mandatory, and in particular those moral standards.
Those rules are not necessarily met, but only if one wants to. But they are there because human reality is there, and ‘has its laws’, its ways. And it is that the development of the person and the achievement of their natural ends have a moral, ethical character. Ethics is something intrinsic to the person, his education, and his natural development. It is the criterion of freedom use. Therefore, ethics cannot be understood as a ‘regulation’ that comes to annoy those who live as they please. Without ethics there is no development of the person, nor harmony between the soul and the body. Shortly after considering who the man is, the evidence immediately arises that, being a person, it is necessarily ethical: 'ethics is that way of using one's own time according to which man grows as a complete being.' Human nature is realized and perfected through free decisions, which make us better because they develop our capabilities. Man, or is ethical, or is not man.
In sum, Relativism proposes that human truth depends entirely on the subjective conditions of the cognitive given that the subject or object relationship varies in each individual and moment as shown by the multiplicity of opinions and theories. Certainly the subjective elements influence our way of knowing hence, our knowledge is limited and improvable to new perspectives but not in what we know. Otherwise, all knowledge and communication would be meaningless. In addition, relativism contradicts itself by proposing itself as absolute truth or at least better than its opposite. It is not seen then why it must be accepted. Moreover, The Natural Law Theory maintains that certain moral laws transcend time, culture, and government. There are universal standards that apply to all mankind throughout all times. These universal moral standards are inherent and recognizable by all of us and form the basis of a just society.
