and...

The argument against a more broad relativism (hereafter perspectivalism) charges that the argument for perspectivalism is self-refuting. This argument goes as follows:

1. Perspectivalism claims that all truth claims are subjective.
a. If a truth claim is subjective, then it is not True.
b. All Truth claims are subjective.
2. Thus, perspectivalism holds that there is no truth.
3. However, if there is no truth then perspectivalisms argument can also not be true.
4. Thus, perspectivalism is self refuting.

I believe this argument to be completely rigorous and sufficient in refuting perspectivalism. The pitfall of perspectivalisms argument is that “all truth claims are subjective.” This is false. I would hold that many truth claims are indeed true. For example, it is true that two hydrogen atoms bonded with one oxygen atom is water. This fact is true outside of any subjective interpretation. This fact is true whether or not humans even existed (though obviously there would be no proper name for hydrogen, oxygen, or water), and is thus not subjective. I will hold that I have successfully shown that perspectivalism is false. This was necessary in order to motivate that I am not of the opinion that all truth claims are relative. Instead, I hold that ethical claims are relative. The next step will then be to distinguish between an ethical claim and a truth claim and show how we can hold the former as being relative without having to admit it has the same shortcomings as the latter.