UNIVERSALISM VERSUS RELATIVISM

     Now that we know what moral values are, it's time to ask about their meanings. Are they the same for all of us or can they vary depending on the individual, cultural context, society or historical period? It seems as if the second possibility were more likely to be true as we have all disagreed with some about whether something is good or not or about what we sould or shouldn't do. However, it could be said that this disagreement is due to a mistake. For example, when we do a math exam, we don't have always the same answers. However, no one would say that the problem has different solutions. On the contrary, we would think that someone or even everybody is wrong. Well, in Philosophy the idea that states that there is only one meaning for moral values is known as universalism. On the contrary, relativism states that what is good or bad changes depending on the individual or group and that there are no moral absolutes. This debate has been historically represented by Socrates versus sophists.
     Socrates lived in the s. 5th b. C. He was deeply convienced that universally valid truth existed, taht the meaning of the concepts were universal, they didn't vary and this is the case of the mooral values too. In fact, the search for knowledge, specially for the meaning of goodness, was more important than anything else because only by achieving this knowledge could one become virtuous. It is easy to understand that in order to live a good life, first we need to know what good is. But he didn't say only that. He stated somenthing more surprising, namely, if we know what goodness is, we will act in a good way. Socrates' central belief is that virtue depends on knowledge. All people desire good, therefore any evil they commit is due to ignorance of what good is. So, there are not bad people, only ignorant ones. In other words, it is impossible to know what we should do and yet doing something else, because nobody desires a bad life. However, sometimes we do mistakes, as in the case of the math exam. We considere somenthing to be good although it is not.

     The relativist's proposal is that moral judgements or values depend on the individual or society So, if we visited two different cities with different moral rules, we wouldn't be able to say who is right or wrong. In fact, we shouldn't decide it, because both are right as they both can decide what good is.
     This idea is represented by sophists. It is necessary too remember that this group of philosophers were skeptical too. They were convienced that no sure knowledge could be achieved because the meaning of justice or good isn't the same for all of us. It's like the temperature. What may seem hot to one person, may seem cold to another one, depending on what climate they come from and they are used to. So, instead of investigating the meanig of justice, good....they were interested in rhetoric and in how to be convincing. To understand why this was so important to them we have to review their political and sovila context.
Athens was a democratic society. Although women, slaves and foreign residents were not able to take part in the political decisions, Athenians citizens could do it in a direct way. I mean, not by choosing political representatives, like we do today, but by doing it by themselves. Having good skills in speaking was then a powerful tool, as it was the way to convince the others and, therefore, to have power. Sophist were more focused on how to argue instead on what truth is. It didn't mtter is what they were saying was true or not. They simply focused on making the strongest argument they possibly could
Two philosophers very influential among the sophists were Protagoras and Gorgeous

"Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not"
(Protagoras) 

Activity:
Now is your turn! Which philosophical position do you agree the most?
What do you think does Protagoras' quote mean?