It is a persistent myth in popular discourse—and increasingly in managerial and philosophical circles—that Einstein’s theory of relativity somehow legitimises the necessity of subjectivity in science and, by analogy, underwrites ethical relativism. The argument runs, more or less: if the universe can only ever be interpreted from necessarily diverse, individual vantage points (as the theory of relativity claims), then all truth is relative, and “man is the measure of all things,” as Protagoras would have it.
This position, repeated ad nauseam by those with little acquaintance with the rigorous details of either quantum physics or the philosophy of science, is profoundly mistaken. A careful reading of Einstein—let alone of the subsequent philosophical debates—reveals that relativity is a physical, not a subjective, theory. Marie Collins Swabey, in her 1922 exegesis of E.H. Carr’s Theory of Monads, already pointed out that the crux of Einstein’s work is the equivalence of all inertial frames of reference: no reference frame is privileged, but this is a statement about the structure of physical laws, not about the cognitive standpoint or perspective of a human observer.
Alfred North Whitehead was explicit on this point: “the relativity of time and space have been construed as dependent on the choice of the observer. But it is the observer’s body [that is, its physical coordinates] we want, not his mind!” In other words, relativity is about the physical relations between frames of reference, not about epistemic or moral subjectivity. There is no implication in Einstein that ‘truth’ is a matter of personal viewpoint, nor does the theory license any collapse into epistemic or moral relativism.
Antony Flew, in his Introduction to Western Philosophy, makes a critical distinction: subjectivity compares to objectivity, whilst relativity pairs with absolutism. Any motion is essentially relative, but that does not at all imply that any statement about such motion is intrinsically subjective. To put it simpler: relativity concerns the dependence of phenomena on physical relations whereas subjectivity concerns the dependence of truth or value on personal perspective. That some properties are relational does not entail that statements about them are ungrounded or arbitrary. In fact, the great achievement of Einstein’s theory is its universality: the laws of physics are invariant across all inertial frames. The theory of relativity is, in the strictest sense, absolutely universal.
By analogy, one might claim that value judgments, too, are context-dependent—shaped by culture, language, or situation. But it simply does not follow that all such judgments are equally valid or that there can be no objective or universal claims within ethics. The possibility of “unambiguous and universal judgment” remains, even in a world where some values are contingent.
Thus, attempts to merge Einstein’s physical atoms with Leibniz’s metaphysical monads, or to wield Michelson’s interferometer in defence of radical subjectivism, are not only logically fallacious (a non sequitur), but betray a fundamental confusion between ontological, epistemological, and ethical domains. Such misuse is anachronistic and undermines genuine understanding.
Next time someone invokes relativity to claim time and space for their personal opinions, you might want to put them back into their (appropriately coordinated) place! Relativity, properly understood, is a triumph of scientific universality—not a permission slip for interpretive anarchy. Qed.
#logic #leadership #businessethics #philosophy #criticalthinking