My contention is that existing beings exist relatively, and because of this nature, humans require agreement—specifically empathy—to allow their own existence to manifest as such. This claim can be viewed as relativistic, and I have previously described my own position as such in “Humans and the Earth.”
Some interpret this stance as a denial of facts or truth. It is often argued that this leads to ethical dilemmas, particularly between groups with differing values, where an action condemned in one group might be overlooked in another. To be blunt, this criticism is valid. While my brand of relativism asserts that not just values, but existence itself is relative, it nonetheless harbors these ethical issues.
For instance, what do we call “evil” in our daily lives? Littering, speaking ill of others, bullying, theft, or murder. What these actions share is that they threaten the existence of someone or something. Littering threatens the existence of nature or the space where the waste is dumped. Bullying or slandering someone threatens the existence of the victim. Stealing threatens the existence of the owner, and murder is the ultimate negation of the victim’s existence.
For beings that exist relatively, such acts are impermissible. To exist relatively means that each being lives through some form of connection with others. In a web of mutual interconnectedness, threatening one person’s existence inevitably threatens the existence of those connected to them. This applies equally to all relative beings. Thus, any act that jeopardizes the existence of another is perceived as “evil.”
Conversely, “good” can be defined as the affirmation of the existence of someone or something. Cleaning up trash, being considerate, or helping others—these acts affirm the space cleaned, the person cared for, or the individual rescued. For relative beings, these are acts worthy of praise. The act of affirming existence is a noteworthy deed that, in turn, affirms the existence of the doer.
This relates to my previous writing, where I defined “good” as empathy. To empathize is to agree that we share similar emotions or thoughts, thereby affirming each other’s existence. However, gaining attention through the affirmation of existence is not always “good” for all relative beings. If “good” is the affirmation of existence and “evil” is its negation, then commanding attention by affirming one existence may deprive other relative beings of the same opportunity.
In a world where multiple relative beings coexist, one person’s good can become another’s evil. This does not mean the definitions of good and evil change, but rather that they shift depending on the existential positioning of the beings involved. As I noted previously, where one stands is always in contrast to something else, which is synonymous with the difficulty of existing stably in such a world. This is precisely why human society demands agreement or empathy regarding “something” with “someone.”
Does a truly absolute principle then not exist in a world of relative beings? In “Humans and the Earth,” I wrote that no such thing exists, proposing instead a “provisional absolutism.” However, I now find myself wondering if the inverse might be true. Is it really impossible for absolutism to hold within relativism? Could it be that a relative “something” can only exist because there is an absolute “something” behind it?
Perhaps the relative existence of beings is inherently provisional, and because it is so, there is an absolute “will to exist.” Might this be the very thing that makes agreement and empathy possible in the first place? I intend to explore this further in a future piece.
