Moral and Epistemic Relativism

[Thinker]

I would definitely be interested.....if I knew exactly what you're asking.

Will you put it in simpleton-ese for me, please???

[Emmy]

Ha, well, I'm certainly not buying the 'simpleton' claim!

But let's see if I can express myself a little more clearly... I guess I'm asking whether people think that acts are right or wrong in and of themselves (or claims true or false in and of themselves), on the one hand, or whether what is right and what is true vary according to context. Do morality and/or truth mean anything independently of what individuals or societies deem to be right or true?

Hope that helps a bit. Please let me know, though, if not!

Thanks very much,

E

[EnderD_503]

I disagree, what is morally "right" or "true" is entirely relative. Morality is a man-made construct and as such was moulded to whatever belief system it spawned from and, therefore, can only be "true" according to said belief system, but is by no means ultimately true (meaning it cannot exist without that system). Some morals are subjective according to culture or individual, however, others are more pan-human due to the very reason that they concern the survival of the species (a pan-human concern). Therefore, it stems more from the desire to survive (and the desire for those closest to ourselves to survive), a desire which exists in every other species.

I often find it strange the way people in marginalised communities cling to morality as though without it discrimination of marginalised groups would run rampant. I've actually found the case to be quite the opposite. Morality seems to have, at least partially, spawned discrimination in that it passes judgement (or worse) upon any act its own system deems as wrong. That act may be murder, or, on the other hand, it may be sex between two people of the same sex, or sex between two people of a different race, and so on and so forth. Oddly enough both sides, both the "bigots" and the "enlightened" seem to prefer to tout the other as undoubtedly immoral and their own perspective as undoubtedly moral. Why not use reason over moral codes? Who's morality is more moral and according to whom? An extremist who blows up a building or anything else is just as full of moral conviction as those who point at him as the epitome of immorality, the devil in disguise. What makes popular western or left-wing convictions more "true" than any other? Location? The mere fact that one happens to agree?

[little man]

i think that truth, right, wrong, moral, immoral are totally subjective. if not, how could there be mitigating or extenuating circumstances?

i've long thought that the 'truth' is only what you're willing to believe.

i do make a distinction between true and truth. true would be an observable fact. truth would be more aligned with faith. for me. i don't believe in any universal truths. what works for one or some does not always work for others.

i think that groups of people who agree to live together (societies) make tacit agreements on what is acceptable behaiors and laws are made accordingly. those who are unwilling or unable to abide by those laws used to be banished. now, they're imprisoned.

i'll stop here, before i wander into one of my long time thought processes on social contracts.

[Isadora]

Morality, to me, is a form of religious or spiritual belief in right for the betterment of those who believe the same and/or to achieve (heaven, nirvana, Avalon, etc.) a higher being after death. Morality is based on fear of eternal punishment. (Margaret Mead)

Ethics is about how we form guidelines in our society for the betterment of all people. Ethics guide how society works and is lubricated. As societies grew (according to anthropologists and cultural geographers) ethical behavior changed based on the needs of a particular society. Ethics, to me, is about how society agrees to live with each other. Ethics can include many forms of belief especially around decision making, laws, conflict management and how we perceive truth.

And then there is truth. It is an old word...actually of German/Saxon origins. The etymology of the word is from the German "troth" to be faithful or true. It meant to be "treu" is to be faithful, honest, loyal and to live in good faith. The word for "factuality" is actually "soth" (k, this is as close as I could get on this computer to the spelling). There are two distinct meanings for what is truth. I believe soth is always coloured by our perception and therefore subjective. Truth as in being faithful is an emotional or ideological connection to a person, community or society.

(K, I have a fetish about words, meaning and cultural awareness of language.)

So this is a long winded explanation of what littleman said. LOL

[Emmy]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. You make several good and interesting points.

On one reading, it seems to me that your first paragraph assumes what it seeks to demonstrate. The logic here seems similar to this: Morality does not exist except relative to human cultures. Therefore, morality is relative. If the aim here is to show that an act can be right or wrong only insofar as people judge it to be, I don't think the case has been made.

However, if the crucial point you make in your first paragraph is instead that particular moral codes, developed and upheld by particular cultures, must be remembered to be cultural products -and not, a priori, correct in their moral judgments - I'm with you entirely.

In your second paragraph you make several great points. One of which is that conventional codes of morality have often been used to oppress marginalized groups. What I take from this, though, is that not nothing is right and nothing is wrong, but rather that the codes used to brutalize those who are different simply have it wrong when it comes to evaluating morality; that these codes are wrong about right and wrong.

I would also like to point out that, implicit in your argument, I contend, is the notion that discrimination against target groups is a bad thing. (And yes, I certainly agree ) But what underlies that assumption if not a moral judgment? Isn't it the case that the tragic consequences you so rightly point out from the imposition of particular codes of conventional morality are to be avoided precisely because they are wrong?

I whole-heartedly agree with your last assertion, the point that we cannot assume that any particular agreed-upon moral code -e.g., conventional western morality, if there can be said to be such a thing - is correct. I think that that's the great insight behind relativism and I very much agree: We must not assume that familiar moral codes are correct. However, I don't think it follows from this that acts cannot be right or wrong. Rather, what I take from the idea is that we all have a responsibility to examine societal moral codes -especially those of our own society- with the utmost scrutiny.


Thanks again for the engagement. Very much appreciate it!

Emily

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

I disagree, what is morally "right" or "true" is entirely relative. Morality is a man-made construct and as such was moulded to whatever belief system it spawned from and, therefore, can only be "true" according to said belief system, but is by no means ultimately true (meaning it cannot exist without that system). Some morals are subjective according to culture or individual, however, others are more pan-human due to the very reason that they concern the survival of the species (a pan-human concern). Therefore, it stems more from the desire to survive (and the desire for those closest to ourselves to survive), a desire which exists in every other species.

I often find it strange the way people in marginalised communities cling to morality as though without it discrimination of marginalised groups would run rampant. I've actually found the case to be quite the opposite. Morality seems to have, at least partially, spawned discrimination in that it passes judgement (or worse) upon any act its own system deems as wrong. That act may be murder, or, on the other hand, it may be sex between two people of the same sex, or sex between two people of a different race, and so on and so forth. Oddly enough both sides, both the "bigots" and the "enlightened" seem to prefer to tout the other as undoubtedly immoral and their own perspective as undoubtedly moral. Why not use reason over moral codes? Who's morality is more moral and according to whom? An extremist who blows up a building or anything else is just as full of moral conviction as those who point at him as the epitome of immorality, the devil in disguise. What makes popular western or left-wing convictions more "true" than any other? Location? The mere fact that one happens to agree?

[adorable]

I really like this thread.

As I am reading and getting all scholastic (it's been a while) - I keep getting stuck on two things:

1. female castration
2. arranged marriage

I would like to say that I believe that cultural norms make things acceptable that are not acceptable within the confines of my society. But that just isn't true.

I am questioning whether it's more about how those in that society perceive the reality of their situations that changes how I feel about things or do I see it as absolute in it's wrongness and want to "save" people based on what I morally feel is right? Does one have to come first for me to be outraged?

For instance, I watch the tribal shows on the Travel Channel. Fascinating. As I'm watching that show I am not judging them. They do things and believe things to be true based on their society norms. I watch the show and the people in the tribes all seem to be happy with the way their life is....I don't sense that anyone there has a problem with their customs or rituals.

This is not true when I see things about female castration in Asia and Africa. I get outraged, and yet it is a social custom that tribes have practiced for years. I would never have known about the practice if someone hadn't spoken out against it. Would I be outraged if the women who are forced to go through it weren't outraged? If they went under the knife (or piece of glass or dirty can top ugh) willingly or happily even? There is no way to know since I wouldn't have known unless the victims spoke out in horror.

Arranged marriages happen on the tribal shows on the travel channel. Everyone seems happy enough. Some of the guys have multiple wives. I don't judge it. Yet, when I read about Subia Gaur who is 18 (& others like her) and fled for her life from an arranged marriage, I am outraged. So it can't be that I'm outraged about arranged marriages in general, I am outraged for those that are outraged...

lol I hope this makes some sort of sense, but the whole thing is sooo interesting. "Humans have a moral sense. They think they know right from wrong and therefore are able to do right from wrong." - Mark Twain.

[Massive]

I'm very interested in this topic, but I need to come back to post for real after I've had more sleep and been able to formalize my thoughts to the point where they make more sense.
Thank you for starting this thread Emmy!

[atomiczombie]

Finally, something I feel comfortable speaking to. There are a few threads going here on the planet that are so heated that I do not feel like throwing my hat in the ring would add anything constructive, but on this topic I have something to say.

I look at ethics and morality and the comparison of the two in terms of how the language is used. Context is always the key to meaning. The word "moral" can have different meanings depending on the way it is used and who is using it. The basic context of the use of the word moral is the evaluation of the principles of human action. Sometimes it is specifically used in a religious contexts, but sometimes it is used independently of religion. In the religious context, a deity or religious path (God, or Goddess, or buddhist principles, for example) is brought into the discussion. However, it is a kind of discourse that can be used by atheists as well, and even say, a Christian and an atheist can discuss what is right and wrong and be talking about the same thing.

To say that these two contexts of the use of the word "moral" are mutually exclusive and only one is correct is to fall into the fallacy of reductionism. Reductionism can be defined as the attempt to reduce all explanation and interpretation of experience into one conceptual or theoretical framework. It asserts its own point of view as superior to others. It selects certain aspects of experience from which to draw its conclusions while downplaying the importance of (or in some cases even ignoring) other aspects which do not as easily fit into its theoretical system. I believe that the context in which a term is used has a significant bearing on its meaning.

The word "ethics" is more often associated with the academic study of morality and moral principles. However, the two can sometimes be used interchangeably. To say something is moral, one can also say it is ethical. The nature of language is that it is sometimes, and even often times, not rigidly used in a consistent meaning, but loosely and fluidly related. So one can say that while the word "moral" and the word "ethics" or "ethical" do not always have the exact same meaning, they both have family resemblances. (See Ludwig Wittegenstein's Philosophical Investigations for my source.)

As for the subject of moral relativism, my perspective is that the context of an action is the key to determining whether an action is moral or not. However, this is not the same as relativism as it is often used, including how some have used it in this thread. For the purposes of this discussion, I will assign a particular meaning to the word "moral" which I find to be a common thread in its various uses: to be moral is to actively seek the good, happiness and well-being of others as much as I do my own. I include the concept of "as much as" here because I believe that fairness is a moral concept that is intertwined with the meaning of "moral".

And now to the meat of my argument! Although I believe that context is key in dertermining whether an action is moral, I do not believe that morality is relative in its nature. Here is an example to consider: A woman drives down a narrow street in a residential neighbor hood. A small child darts out into the street from behind a parked truck just as the woman in her car approaches said parked truck. There is not enough time for the woman to stop the car and avoid hitting, and ultimately killing the child. Consider scenario #1: as soon as she sees the child, the woman slams on her brakes in an attempt to stop her car, but to no avail and the child is struck dead. Scenario #2, the woman sees the child run out into the street in front of her but makes no attempt to stop her car and avoid hitting the child. In both scenarios, the result is the same. The child is dead. But is there a moral difference between the two scenarios? I say yes. The woman in scenario one demonstrated by her actions that she regarded the well being of the child by attempting to avoid the accident. In scenario two, the woman showed no regard for the child's well being by making no attempt to avoid harming the child. The woman in scenario one was more moral than the woman in scenario two. The intent of the woman in this example is the key to determining whether the action is moral, and not strictly the outcome.

I believe that there are actions in this world that are absolutely wrong in particular circumstances (taking into account the intent). And some actions are morally wrong in any context. Torture and rape come to mind here. Some may disagree with me, but my standard for morality is the regard for the well being of others. Determining what is the best action one can take to reach that goal can be very complicated. Many people can have a stake in different outcomes. War comes to mind when I think about this.

A moral relativist can say that kicking puppies isn't strictly right or wrong, but only in the context of the culture one is raised in. So some people enjoy kicking puppies and if that is a tradition in their culture, then it is not wrong. I say, kicking puppies is morally wrong, period. It shows no regard for the well being of the puppies. I am not a moral relativist.

You can agree or disagree with me. The concept of morality has more than one meaning depending on its context, and more than one standard by which actions are measured. I am only using one particular standard by which to make moral judgements. I realize that the word "judgement" is a loaded word, so I want to clarify that I am using it in terms of whether a particular action is moral, and not whether a person is moral.

I have done a lot of thinking about this over the years, and in my studies as a philosopher in college. I am open to criticism as long as it is respectful, and interested in this dialogue.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

I disagree, what is morally "right" or "true" is entirely relative. Morality is a man-made construct and as such was moulded to whatever belief system it spawned from and, therefore, can only be "true" according to said belief system, but is by no means ultimately true (meaning it cannot exist without that system). Some morals are subjective according to culture or individual, however, others are more pan-human due to the very reason that they concern the survival of the species (a pan-human concern). Therefore, it stems more from the desire to survive (and the desire for those closest to ourselves to survive), a desire which exists in every other species.

I often find it strange the way people in marginalised communities cling to morality as though without it discrimination of marginalised groups would run rampant. I've actually found the case to be quite the opposite. Morality seems to have, at least partially, spawned discrimination in that it passes judgement (or worse) upon any act its own system deems as wrong. That act may be murder, or, on the other hand, it may be sex between two people of the same sex, or sex between two people of a different race, and so on and so forth. Oddly enough both sides, both the "bigots" and the "enlightened" seem to prefer to tout the other as undoubtedly immoral and their own perspective as undoubtedly moral. Why not use reason over moral codes? Who's morality is more moral and according to whom? An extremist who blows up a building or anything else is just as full of moral conviction as those who point at him as the epitome of immorality, the devil in disguise. What makes popular western or left-wing convictions more "true" than any other? Location? The mere fact that one happens to agree?

I find it interesting that you say this. I am wondering if you mean the same thing as I mean when I talk about reductionism. If so, then might that evaluation be a judgement too? What I am getting at is that making evaluations about whether or not something is say, "discrimination" or not, is implying that discrimination is wrong, or at the very least that some people who pass moral judgments on others is hypocrisy, which is a judgment in itself and also implies wrongness. At least that is what I hear you saying, and if I am wrong then please correct me.

I believe that objective reason and moral discourse are different sorts of the use of the Language. As I said in my previous post, "judgment" is a loaded word. What I mean here is that for some people it can have a negative connotation. For example, to pass judgment on someone is to evaluate them harshly and by a narrow set of criteria which are unfair. That sort of thing. But the word Judgement has another meaning too - the act of making considered decisions or coming to sensible conclusions ("considered" here meaning to weigh all available facts first). And yet there is something lacking in this definition too, I think. Having all the available facts does not lead to one inevitable conclusion which reason alone can determine. There has to be another element involved to get from facts to a decision. I would call this element human will, or human freedom. Another way of describing this is to say that the bridging of the gap between facts and conclusions requires a qualitative leap of human will (See Soren Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments for my source).

It is my contention that reason alone cannot speak to moral questions of right and wrong. Moral discourse, while talking about facts, is not really about the facts but about what it means to be a human being. And further, that even the most extreme moral relativist cannot escape this human element, this qualitative leap. To say that there is no true morality, only objective facts is to make such a leap. The facts themselves cannot do this, only a human with a free will can. This is what Kierkegaard means when he says that Truth is subjectivity (see Soren Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript for my source.).

I would be happy and very interested to hear what you think Ender, and what the rest of you think as well.

[apretty]

i like context.

[Venus007]

I need to post this to get the ball rolling or I will never post (I am somewhat shy of posting things of substance and I have to just do it)

At a very basic primitive level I think that acts are right or wrong in and of themselves. Not all acts, of course. I believe that for us as a species the acts that are “right” are the ones that preserve our survival both as an individual and as a species. As well as acts that preserve our individual autonomy (meaning that if I think it is right to enslave people because it will help me be a more viable human creature (viable meaning more likely to produce more successful offspring to adulthood and subsequent breeding) that is wrong because it takes another’s autonomy.)
Outside of this very simple idea of right and wrong everything else is a cultural/societal imposition.

My ideals of right and wrong are not based in a belief of a “higher standard” outside myself either by an idea of a deity or of some natural law written on our hearts. My idea of right and wrong hinge on autonomy and species preservation.

Somewhere mixed in here is also an idea that individuals who cannot choose for themselves, children, individuals who are mentally incompetent, delirious, unconscious etc have the right to be protected by society until they are able to make autonomous choices or in the event that they cannot make autonomous choices to be given as much leeway as possible stopping short of the destruction of another or self harm.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

I disagree, what is morally "right" or "true" is entirely relative. Morality is a man-made construct and as such was moulded to whatever belief system it spawned from and, therefore, can only be "true" according to said belief system, but is by no means ultimately true (meaning it cannot exist without that system). Some morals are subjective according to culture or individual, however, others are more pan-human due to the very reason that they concern the survival of the species (a pan-human concern). Therefore, it stems more from the desire to survive (and the desire for those closest to ourselves to survive), a desire which exists in every other species.

Here's the problem that I see with saying that morality is relative. Since you talk about marginalized groups, let's talk about some of the things that have happened to marginalized groups which have, at other times and in other places, been considered moral. Let's do the heavy one first and talk about slavery. If what you are saying is true, that morality is relative, then there are times, places or worlds in which American-style chattel slavery is morally acceptable. I would argue that slavery is immoral because it reduces a human being to a mere object and that it is wrong to reduce human beings to mere objects. I would say that this is grounded in our basic humanness, people WANT to be self-determining and self-actualizing and slavery prevents both by its very nature.

Now, if morality is, in fact, relative then the above may not be true. If that is the case then one can imagine a population that has the misfortune of being enslaved becoming adjusted to that condition and, in fact, becoming happy within that condition. I would argue that I am not aware of any such population EVER having existed. My ancestors coped with being slaves, they had moments of happiness--the birth of a child, say--but these were moments of happiness that occurred despite the condition of being enslaved.

I often find it strange the way people in marginalised communities cling to morality as though without it discrimination of marginalised groups would run rampant.

I think we cling to morality because we are human beings.

I've actually found the case to be quite the opposite. Morality seems to have, at least partially, spawned discrimination in that it passes judgement (or worse) upon any act its own system deems as wrong.

Might that not be putting the cart before the horse? Might it be that humans will find some reason to discriminate and will then backfill in the why of it, usually wrapping it up in the moral language of, say, taboo or uncleanliness?

That act may be murder, or, on the other hand, it may be sex between two people of the same sex, or sex between two people of a different race, and so on and so forth.

I don't know about putting those two into the same moral bucket. One (murder) clearly harms others by its very nature while the other doesn't. I think that before society proscribes any given act 'X' it should always ask itself "is there some compelling reason why this should be sanctioned".

Oddly enough both sides, both the "bigots" and the "enlightened" seem to prefer to tout the other as undoubtedly immoral and their own perspective as undoubtedly moral. Why not use reason over moral codes? Who's morality is more moral and according to whom? An extremist who blows up a building or anything else is just as full of moral conviction as those who point at him as the epitome of immorality, the devil in disguise. What makes popular western or left-wing convictions more "true" than any other? Location? The mere fact that one happens to agree?

Well, that last question is the one I like to pull out on relativists, quite honestly. If all knowledge is relative and if all morality is relative, might it NOT be true that, say, Fred Phelps is correct and that all queer people are Satan-spawned demons bound for Hell? If whatever one believes is true is actually true then the only reason we might have for telling Phelps that he is full of it is that we disagree. For myself, I want a firmer intellectual foundation than "I don't like what you say and therefore what you say is wrong" to stand upon. Something similar applies to moral relativism. I would argue that, for instance, slavery is wrong--not wrong in the West, not wrong amongst the Left, not wrong when it's my ancestors but okay when it's your ancestors. Rather, I would argue that slavery is wrong because it violates something central, core and non-negotiable about human beings--namely that we belong to ourselves. That is true for my ancestors and it is true for everyone reading this post.

[Kobi]

Being an operationalist rather than a theorist...

I believe there are universal truths.

I believe there is human effort to find ways to actualize these universal truths in and through our human existence.

I believe the human effort to do so is an evolution which is guided by every day life, the decisions we make, the consequences or implications, expected and unexpected, which spur us to think and act and new and different ways.

I believe this process can only occur within a cultural context for to deny this would negate the existence of differing levels of evolutions and opportunity within different societies, and rob them of the opportunity for self development and identity.

Using the example above.....when the agricultural society of our country grew in unprecidented ways, we discovered the concept of a labor shortage. Needing a labor force in a different way meant looking at options, if any, and deciding on what basis an option was chosen. For a number of reasons we resorted to human trafficing to meet a need. This decision may have met a labor need but also resulted in new, never before encountered challenges i.e. who is this new labor force, how is the labor force to be viewed and treated etc.

In time, the arrival of these new peoples evolved into new trends in thought i.e. does one group of humans have the right to buy and sell another group of humans, and what other options are available to fill the need for labor etc.

During the industrial revolution, we again needed an influx of labor. And legalized immigration became the new way to solve labor needs.

It is a process in the development of the human concept of itself and the challenges it faces in living.

If one looks at the rapid development of the economic system in China, the effects on such on its population, and the effects on its culture, the parallels of its growing pains so resemble the American experience it is frightening. It is frightening because rather than evolving into changes and taking its people with it, it is taking western concepts and actions and imposing them on an unsuspecting people resulting in a totally different experience than was intended. It is both fascinating and disturbing to watch.

As Jane Wagner once said....reality is nothing more than a collective hunch.....to which I would add......at a certain time, in a certain place by a certain group of people.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Kobi

As Jane Wagner once said....reality is nothing more than a collective hunch.....to which I would add......at a certain time, in a certain place by a certain group of people.


[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

I'm curious, do you think this applies to the physical world? In other words do you believe that there are any places, any people on this Earth for whom water did *not* freeze at 32 degrees F (0 C)? Do you think that there are any people or any place or any time at which a rock of some throwable weight wasn't subject to force which is equal to its mass multiplied by its acceleration? Now, I will admit that F=ma (Newton's second law) is an approximation but it is a close *enough* approximation that for most applications we can use it (for example, all space shots are calculated using Newton instead of Einstein because the math is more tractable). However, that equation describes an approximation of a physical reality that was true before Newton came along to explain it. All Newton did was quantify what is happening.

This is the problem I have with statements along the lines of the Wagner quote: it ignores the physical world. There have been cultures (including Western) that *believed* that the Sun orbited the Earth but every single one of them (including this one) was absolutely and completely wrong about that. The belief that the Sun orbited the Earth didn't change the physical reality. The same can be said about, for instance, the cause of thunder and lightning--people have, until fairly recently, believed that this was caused by the thunder god, or the sky god, or what-have-you but at no point was any of that *true* and to say it was 'true for them' really misses the point. Would one accept that the paramedic who is about to give you CPR believes that your heart is in your feet? Would one accept that this is 'true for them' while you die because they are giving you a foot massage? Should one accept that?

The other thing, the contradictory thing, is that the idea that reality is just a hunch is, itself, an epistemic statement. I'm only being half-cheeky here when I say that if the strong epistemic relativists are correct then their argument negates itself. If all of reality is just a collective hunch and not based upon some objective, empirical reality that would hold true even if this universe never contained a single sentient being, then that statement itself is the baseline reality and thus it negates the idea that there is no truth 'outside' our ability to construct it socially.

[little man]

is it just me or did the conversation just shift from philosophical theory to physical science?

[Kobi]

I believe I said there are universal truths. Humans interpret or describe universal truths based on their perception of reality at a given time. These perceptions change over time as we gather more and more knowledge. Hence we are saying, it appears, the same thing.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I'm curious, do you think this applies to the physical world? In other words do you believe that there are any places, any people on this Earth for whom water did *not* freeze at 32 degrees F (0 C)? Do you think that there are any people or any place or any time at which a rock of some throwable weight wasn't subject to force which is equal to its mass multiplied by its acceleration? Now, I will admit that F=ma (Newton's second law) is an approximation but it is a close *enough* approximation that for most applications we can use it (for example, all space shots are calculated using Newton instead of Einstein because the math is more tractable). However, that equation describes an approximation of a physical reality that was true before Newton came along to explain it. All Newton did was quantify what is happening.

This is the problem I have with statements along the lines of the Wagner quote: it ignores the physical world. There have been cultures (including Western) that *believed* that the Sun orbited the Earth but every single one of them (including this one) was absolutely and completely wrong about that. The belief that the Sun orbited the Earth didn't change the physical reality. The same can be said about, for instance, the cause of thunder and lightning--people have, until fairly recently, believed that this was caused by the thunder god, or the sky god, or what-have-you but at no point was any of that *true* and to say it was 'true for them' really misses the point. Would one accept that the paramedic who is about to give you CPR believes that your heart is in your feet? Would one accept that this is 'true for them' while you die because they are giving you a foot massage? Should one accept that?

The other thing, the contradictory thing, is that the idea that reality is just a hunch is, itself, an epistemic statement. I'm only being half-cheeky here when I say that if the strong epistemic relativists are correct then their argument negates itself. If all of reality is just a collective hunch and not based upon some objective, empirical reality that would hold true even if this universe never contained a single sentient being, then that statement itself is the baseline reality and thus it negates the idea that there is no truth 'outside' our ability to construct it socially.