Shuler 1

Graham Shuler
March 22, 2017
Bioethics Florence

What are we talking about?

Quest upon quest, humanity seeks to personify experience. As a society is personified

as a person, then in isolating that individual body, an inherent general belief system with moral

guidelines takes root. The body’s beliefs are not necessarily true in an objective sense, but are

true in his opinions (the subjective sense) causing there to be no real disagreement in an

argument between what is right or wrong against different societies (bodies) with different moral

codes. This is an exchange of opinionated utterances since we are not talking about the same

experience. This paper will argue that the irreconcilable turmoil of relativism can be overcome

due to the advancements in the human experience across multiple fields, specifically within

biotechnology, that provides opportunities for humanity to reconcile our way of thinking

ultimately developing frameworks for future revolutions.

Framework

The disagreements with relativism are many as this ideology conflicts with innate truth

and absolutes. The increased focus on context and culture can understandably be construed

as interactions with something that simply is not real. In addition to these arguments, relativism

is also associated with a departure from rational knowledge and a following of constructed

religious and political paths that judge morality as arbitrary. The concerns from this propose a

fear that relativism promotes the implementation of a single belief system that jeopardizes

understanding other perspectives. The harsh reality of the current world state can be displayed

within several statistics. The Infant Mortality Rate is currently 49.4% (UN), 12.9% live in

Shuler 2
starvation (World Hunger Organization) - with a staggering 20 million people facing starvation in

the upcoming months, and the poorest 40% of the world’s population account for only 5% of

global income - with income gaps widening across the world. In the absence of a global

consensus, morality of these issues can be assumed to be bad, evil, and in some cases

contribute to death itself. The disconnect of a mistakenly segregated species struggles to

identify with even the most simple shared value of equal life. The ability to empathize with

people who are not empathetic is incredibly difficult - however, doing so is essential for any type

of progress. The relativism within the previous examples can be picked apart in any number of

ways. Although each of these numbers can be relative to their country or region, it is important

to argue that the definition of starvation should not merely be lack of food, but of holistic

nutrients. The notion of only eating to stay alive is preposterous amongst the advances made in

modern technology, and the reality of millions starving is an alarming exposure of humanity’s

disinterest in the preservation of humankind.

“The notion of the mask over the face of nature is…. what I have called ‘relativism’. If ‘the
face of nature’ is reality, then the mask over it, which is what theory gives us, is so much
deception, and that is what relativism really comes to.” (Stanford Encyclopedia).

This natural pursuit will continue to be expound upon in this paper as those who have

reshaped human life through failed institutions of shared beliefs, explorations of nature, and the

promising future of technologically enhanced life. “For every statement, theory, point of view

believed (to be true) with good reason there exist arguments showing a conflicting alternative to

be at least as good, or even better.” (Stanford Encyclopedia) The idea presented in final lecture

defines this New Age Renaissance that shall result in a “thought community”. The lecture

specifically addresses that “A new style of thought is not just about a certain form of

explanation, about what it is to explain, it is about what there is to explain - it establishes the

Shuler 3
object of explanation.” Words are meant to express meaning, but are held to an increasingly

intense standard of immense definition that limits communication.

This paper will argue that communication is the primary function required to progress out

of philosophical debate and to usher in an age of action. The term relativism itself has a lack of

consensus within it: “The label “relativism” has been attached to a wide range of ideas and

positions which may explain the lack of consensus on how the term should be defined. The

profusion of the use of the term “relativism” in contemporary philosophy means that there is no

ready consensus on any one definition.” (Stanford Encyclopedia) Within Covariance Relativism,

it is suggested that truth is relative to a language-game, supporting the claim that

communication is the crucial component to progress. Relativism within contrast denies

ideologies of absolutism and realism as the singularity of truth cannot be solely identified. The

current state of the world is incapable of communicating effectively within this framework of

thought as cultures, belief systems, languages, and other traceable factors. The hidden

parameters show how wrong thoughts and actions have been due to the lack of awareness.

Accelerating traction for shared responsibility within the field of bioethics is seemingly

impossible, as many simply do not care nor do they wish to make the necessary, informed, and

collaborative decisions. The standoff that humanity rests in now causes inaction and passive

decay to the newly discovered lives these organisms live. Relativism, generally, “Claim(s) that

all beliefs are only true relative to their framework.” (Stanford Encyclopedia) These frameworks

are in some cases essential, such as those relating to natural resources or other elements that

naturally occur within this reality. However, the damage that has come to the human organism

manifests itself through the constructed frameworks other humans have created. These

frameworks limit freethinking and prohibit natural advances that ironically can be enhanced and

achieved through the usages of technology. The irony of relativism rests in the reinforced truth

Shuler 4
that relativism must be relative in a global sense. There are many issues that do not impact

large majorities of the world that drastically impact others. For example, the threat of disease

carrying mosquitoes is drastically reduced in areas of the world without the suitable climate for

such insect life. In ​Relativism of Distance​, “Williams argues that certain concepts are only

available to people who live a particular form of life. These are concepts that are not a part of

what Williams calls the ‘absolute conception of the world’ and do not express truths that any

rational creature, regardless of her culture, would in principle acknowledge.” (Stanford

Encyclopedia) These regionally specific issues reinforce the cultural relativism that is not only

seen within justice, but also the large variance of human life experiences on Earth. This allows

relativism to serve as a liberating device between traditional ethics and the reality within

politicized future.

Modern Relativism

The issues the modern world faces that identify within current frameworks are

irreconcilable. With growing hostility and decreasing communication, this archaic framework will

revert humanity to the stone age. The absence of shared values and the realization of a more

successful life with the collaborative actions of a people living together have constructed many

institutions, specifically politics and religion, to construct a single system of beliefs that relatively

enables and prohibits freethinking and development. Derivatives of this have had negative

constructed impacts, as religions and other institutions have attempted to create this common

ground. August Comte was responsible for the cry “all is relative and that’s the only absolute.”

(Stanford Encyclopedia) A contradictory statement address the practical fluidity of natural life

and a stark separation from what will be discussed in this section in regards to institutionalized

beliefs. Ideas that come out of religion that are problematic, especially in the idea of the soul as

Shuler 5
this eternal part of you that is incorruptible. This is a very dangerous idea and scientifically is

clearly false. Efforts to cure sociopaths have been attempted, but it has not worked.

Sociopaths are fairly common, Dr. Martha Stout estimates 4% of the population is a sociopath.

They are the human predators, it is very easy to create them due to traumatization of children.

This example addresses the relativism of abortion and mental health, In Chechen, Romania

abortion was banned and many women who would have elected abortion ended up giving them

to orphanages where they were fed, but no one ever touched them. “Numerous other cases

could be cited, even including those in which the woman is explicitly obliged to choose between

pregnancy and keeping her job. In essence, while abortion has tended so far to be blamed

mainly on the spread of immorality and the selfishness of hedonism of women, there are clearly

other factors that encourage abortion and that must be tackled through the help and maturation

of society as a whole. The laws, the services, the human solidarity are all complementary to this

commitment.” (Berlinguer 20) Obviously determining if a child is predisposed to developing a

mental illness can arguably be immoral. In the continued example of the Chechen orphans,

they were then adopted by French families. Many of these kids then went on to throw cats and

even other children out the windows. Empathy uses 10-12 different brain centers that must fire

simultaneously. That exceptionally complex dilemma changes what has been previously

understood about humanity, especially when punishment was handed out through ridiculous

logic.

In regards to relativism within this institutions discipline, it is often carried out by the

church, such as the Pope’s Pear for sodomites in Rome or paddling of students in Catholic

schools. People who spank act exactly against empathy by doing exactly what the child does

not want to have done to them. These dilemmas surrounding empathy directly prohibit paradise

on earth as it is a multigenerational process, because all that can be done is to manage the

Shuler 6
process through prisons. To live in a religious place and think there are healthy people deep

down that you can connect with is extremely dangerous. This idea that you can get through to

the most corrupt people and reawaken their humanity is incredibly dangerous. If a sociopath is

able to create this idea of a soul, then it provides opportunities for other to help them realize

they are not predators. ​They​ have done studies with intentional cruelty and watched the

subjects neurons fire through sensors. The same euphoric centers related to orgasm and other

forms of pleasure light up during these representations of pain. Humanity is an entire

ecosystem of predator and prey and the inability to differentiate between these worlds drives

humans to be the most dangerous to each other. Governments murdered over 260 million

unarmed people in the 20th century, six times more than those that died in combat. As this

evidence proposes, the way to identify sociopaths can come from analyzing religious and

political leaders. “Increased awareness of diversity together with an awareness of the historical

contingency of one’s own convictions promotes political toleration... For the discovery of

religious diversity can prompt the thought that it’s in some sense accidental that one happens to

be raised in a Christian household rather than a Hindu household. This kind of arbitrariness can

make the child wonder whether there’s any reason to think that his religious beliefs are more

likely to be right than those of the Hindu child.” (Stanford Encyclopedia)​ ​Free will is another

relative issue within these institutions, as our capacity to compare something proposed to a free

standard. Within science we compare using scientific verification… or in morales we compare

to a moral standard. Comparing things to an ideal is a fundamental aspect of free will. Is this

moral? Is this right? Is this God’s will? The argument of free will is repetitive. However, it is not

limited to what causes this or that occurrence, rather it is comparing two ideal standards. When

there is a deviation from that standard then there is an effort to realign. Futures are

fundamentally written by the deepest values, like a train track, and we can only change the

Shuler 7
scope of our ethics rather than changing the effect of our ethics themselves. Providing people

with stronger ideals enables the ability to give new information and evaluate new ideals and

change behavior - this is the only choice we have. No one can really prove that one thing is

better than the other in these cases or relativity. Telling a Christian they will be happier being

an atheist is difficult to prove and also very conflicting as that could create unprecedented strife

within their family and community. However, community and family can be made non-existent

through relativity as the do not appear or exist when not in communication or in sight.

In the 19th century, Nietzsche proclaimed Socrates basic argument is reason equals

virtue equals happiness (Nietzsche). Therefore, to be happy one must have consistent

principles. This claim supports the creation of shared belief systems which in turn contributes to

culture. In psychology, if you have conflicting beliefs you are going to be unhappy. “According

to Rovane, relativism is motivated by the existence of truths that cannot be embraced together,

not because they contradict and hence disagree with each other but because they are not

universal truths.” (Stanford Encyclopedia) Some parents physically abuse their children, but the

church telling the children to honor their mother and father causes a contradiction that is going

to produce unhappiness, confusion, and frustration. The idea of philosophy is to continue to roll

forward these principles enhancing more consistent thinking with a greater chance to have

happiness. Being raised in an irrational culture where culture is inherently illogical generates

conflict with many people in the surrounding. Many power structures use undefined beliefs to

control, making it very difficult for people to be able to move forward from this, because they

have made so many rationalizations to protect themselves. Scientifically, arguing drives a fight

or flight response, then causes the development of a justification to justify an emotional reaction.

These institutions give people a moral position to cling to, however if treated as an intellectual

puzzle then there is the ability to move forward. The shared values of identifying evil can be

Shuler 8
difficult, but incredibly powerful. Once people identify something as evil it is pretty much

finalized. For example, slavery was widely accepted as a general practice for centuries, but has

no visible power now because the immorality has been identified for what it is. When the

danger, immorality, or evil is seen then peaceful change, very few times have revolutions

actually lead to something better. Within these certain beliefs are consequences and if the

destructive aspects are not identified and corrected then the moral effort itself is hypocritical.

Technological Advancements

There are many opportunities and dilemmas within the progression of technology and

like in the scientific revolution there is a desperate need for change to adapt to the evolving

world. There is a strong hindrance within humans and their stubbornness. The European

physicians who ignored the vaccinations for smallpox from slaves due to their “epistemological

blindness” were convinced they had nothing to gain from people they viewed as inferior. The

other hindrance to the progression of these vaccinations was a theological debate surrounding

vaccines. This inability to find common ground to ultimately protect life proves that the

relativism within technomedicine cannot be overcome in the current framework. (Global Health

5.115) “There are instances of long-standing disagreement... and yet, no amount of information

and debate enables them or us to resolve the disagreement… it can seem that neither side

seems to have made any obvious mistake (Stanford Encyclopedia).” This has fundamentally

prohibited progression, but has also caused new abilities to create through examples of

collaboration and pure brilliance (or luck). The ability to create comes with a warning, “We can

no longer assume that the biology ‘itself’ will impose limits on human ambitions. As a result,

humans must accept a much greater responsibility toward the realm of the biological, which has,

in a sense, become a wholly contingent condition” (Franklin 2003). This new responsibility is

Shuler 9
increasingly involved with the medicine and technology itself as the human interaction with it

makes it a part of the human organism’s livelihood. “Medicine itself has also been transformed.

It has become technomedicine, highly dependent on sophisticated diagnostic and therapeutic

equipment” (Rose 11) This integration is again proven by the advances being made within the

medical field. “A style of thought is not merely a new discourse.” In discussing the molecular

knowledge progression over the last 50 years the intensity of technology has “(caused) the

laboratory (to) become a kind of factory for the new creation of new forms of molecular life. And

in doing so, it is fabricating a new way of understating life itself.” (Rose 13) As our

understanding changes we need to think about these entire frameworks differently,

“These are not merely medical technologies or technologies of health,

they are technologies of life….the old lines between treatment, correction,
and enhancement can no longer be sustained…. these new technologies,
then, do not just seek to cure organic damage… but change what it is to
be a biological organism, by making it possible to refigure or try to refigure
vital processes themselves in order to maximize their functioning and
enhance their outcomes.” (Rose 17)

The ability to increase the capacity and definition of medical technology shapes future

perceptions of all treatment and livelihood. By engineering the organisms the chage will

continue to increase exponentially, again making the case that human organism, as nature, are

fluid and flexible, not stagnant to an archaic system of beliefs.

“Developments in psychopharmacology have transformed the way in

which individuals are understood as the very features that seemed to
constitute their individuality- such as personality and mood- now appear
to be amenable to transformation by use of specially engineered drugs
such as Prozac” (Rose 112)

Amazingly, mental health is still incredibly mishandled and misunderstood. This old way

of thinking can constantly be self-critiqued through the continued development of different DSM

volumes. Why do we still treat mental health like this if we understand it differently? We still

shun our fellow humans and do not provide what they need… Technology like CT scans allow

Shuler 10
for scientist and doctors to scan the brain, but still look at them the same. The progression of

technomedicine needs to be rapidly increased within cognitive and mental health spaces.

These drastic breakthroughs could eliminate massive amounts of mental disorders and increase

human ability to communicate and understand empathy. This progression of the mind is not

bound by the physical space that medicine and technology are, because you have more

flexibility when not in that limited space - there is more to do.

Communication is the ultimate pillar in overcoming ethical and philosophical standoffs

and decades without any progression. Initially, platforms must be created to give people a

voice. Democracy does not entirely accomplish this as the person is made a stakeholder and

not a human with a voice in the madness. One of the profound breakthroughs within relativism

came from a physical space that can be applied to the psychological and philosophical spaces

as well. “According to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity even an object’s mass is relative to a

choice of spatio-temporal framework. An object can have one mass in relation to one such

framework and a different mass in relation to another, (therefore) moral right and wrong are

always relative to a choice of moral framework. (Stanford Encyclopedia Harman) This

framework conversation continues to support that within communication the foundation is to

fundamentally understand what people are truly saying. A major breakthrough in this

communication is being made available with Waverly Labs new earpiece translator. This

argues against criticism of relativism moving past the archaic views of language based culture

that would no longer have those limitations. Being able to clearly communicate is a step, but

arguing does not accomplish anything. There needs to be an established forum to create a

voice for people and allow others to develop their own thoughts and ideas from within this

space. Reddit, the online forum, serves as a great example for the possibility of this platform.

Moving out of destructive and addictive prescriptions drugs, neurological enhancers could be

Shuler 11
made readily available to enhance human brain capacity. ​“The goal is to develop drugs that not

only allow the brain to learn quickly, but which also facilitate selective retention of the information that has

been learned.” (​Bostrom 317) This ties directly into the mental health issues discussed

previously in this paper. The ability to travel has exponentially increased over the last several

years and living abroad drastically improves communication abilities with native people and

those in the region you are living. ​“Society faces many pressing problems which would be more

readily solved if its members were smarter, wiser, or more creative. An enhancement that

enables an individual to solve some of society’s problems would produce a positive externality:

in addition to benets for the enhanced individual, there would be spillover benets for other

members of society.” (Bostrom 328) The enhancement can be derived of nature - again not just

institutions. For example, ​Da Vinci was free to think differently and had a drastic impact on the

modern world, his educated contemporaries could not compare to his accomplishments. His

focus was on the natural world and imitating nature, which enabled previously impossible

actions. With no formal education he envisioned war machines and technology that would take

hundreds of years to create.

Again, these advancements being cognitive and accomplishing the realization that

relativism is in fact a fluid representation of nature continues to free the possibilities of

revolution. Not being limited to a physical space in this world of thought the mind is free to

create and expand in even greater ways. Just as Jesus says that his followers will perform

greater miracles than he did, the same idea continues in science, as science is continually built

upon and expanded. While these two relative frameworks of thought seemingly exclude each

other, they ultimately seek to accomplish the same thing. The future of thought progression can

be compared to that of da Vinci, or perhaps even more powerfully, “The very ease and rapidity

with which astronomers saw new things when looking at old objects with old instruments may

Shuler 12
make us wish to say that, after Copernicus, astronomers lived in a different world (Stanford

Encyclopedia).

Conclusion

Relativism has been subdivided to many different aspects that revolve around the same

concept as measurement. The only way to quantify size is to compare it to something else that

is larger or smaller. The irreconcilable turmoil of relativism can be overcome due to the

advancements across multiple fields, specifically within biotechnology, that provides

opportunities for humanity to reconcile our way of thinking ultimately developing frameworks for

future revolutions. The criticisms of this thesis operate out of the framework that it seeks to

debunk. That the organisms humans are have changed so drastically in the merging with

technology in action, medicine, and countless other aspects, that the way of thinking before this

is utterly void. “Since we have established in this way that everything is relative, it is clear then

that we shall not be able to say what an existing object is like in its own nature and purely, but

only what it appears to be like relative to something. (Stanford Encyclopedia) The future of free

thinking in a reshaped framework can look back to the scientific revolution for a small glimpse at

the potency for this breakthrough. “The scientific revolution of the early 20th century, brought

about by, for instance, the advent of Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics and the loss of

faith in lasting religious or political truths (Marxism in particular), as well as the failure of

foundationalist philosophical programs have been used in arguments to vindicate relativistic

views.” (Stanford Encyclopedia) Just as the scientific revolution brought forward changes, the

technological revolution has done so and even more strongly -it is time for psychology and

philosophy to catch up as the Thought Renaissance evolves.

“Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power.” Michael Luther King Jr.

Shuler 13
Bibliography

1. Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, 1844-1900. (1998). Twilight of the idols, or, How to
philosophize with a hammer. New York :Oxford University Press,
2. Swoyer, Chris, “Relativism”, ​Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy​ (Summer 2015
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<​https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/relativism/​>. [This was the previous
entry on relativism in the ​Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy​ — see the ​version
history​.]
3. Rose, Nikolas S. ​Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the
Twenty-first Century.​ Princeton: Princeton UP, 2007. Print.
4. Berlinguer, Giovanni. ​Everyday Bioethics: Reflections on Bioethical Choices in Daily Life.
Amityville, NY: Baywood, 2004. Print.
5. Bostrom, Nick, and Julian Savulescu. ​Human Enhancement.​ Oxford: Oxford UP, 2013.
Print.

Shuler 14