We're all probably familiar with the moral relativists' argument from disagreement. We think murdering Jews is wrong. But the Nazis thought it was right. So - in effect, the moral relativist says - who is to say?
I'm wondering what you guys think about a similar argument for epistemic relativism. IOW, what would you make of this argument, or one like it: We think accepting beliefs that contradict each other is irrational. But a person could believe that accepting beliefs that contradict each other is rational (or even always rational). If they really, honestly believed that, even if they were insane to do so, what would really make us right and them wrong?
I don't accept this argument. I present as a potentially interesting topic for discussion. What do you make of it?
I'm wondering what you guys think about a similar argument for epistemic relativism. IOW, what would you make of this argument, or one like it: We think accepting beliefs that contradict each other is irrational. But a person could believe that accepting beliefs that contradict each other is rational (or even always rational). If they really, honestly believed that, even if they were insane to do so, what would really make us right and them wrong?
I don't accept this argument. I present as a potentially interesting topic for discussion. What do you make of it?