Scientific Value Relativism: Analyzing Gandhi’s Ultimate Values

When we examine Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy through the lens of modern social science, a fascinating tension emerges. Gandhi derived his ultimate values-truth and non-violence-from sources that lie beyond empirical verification. Social science, however, operates within the boundaries of what can be observed, measured, and tested. This clash between faith-based values and scientific inquiry raises important questions: Can social science study Gandhian values? If so, how should it approach concepts rooted in religious conviction?

Positivistic schools of value relativism 🔗

Before examining Gandhi’s ultimate values, it’s essential to understand the three major positivistic schools that shaped modern social science’s approach to ethics and morality. Each school attempts to explain the origins of values through different deterministic frameworks.

The evolutionary school 🔗

Thinkers like Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse, T.H. Huxley, and Julian Huxley approached ethics through the lens of biological evolution. Hobhouse helped establish academic sociology in the United Kingdom alongside Edward Westermarck and explored how moral ideas might have evolved alongside human biological development. This school suggests that our moral sensibilities developed as adaptive traits that helped human societies survive and cooperate.

The historical school 🔗

Philosophers like Hegel and Marx viewed values as products of historical processes. For Hegel, moral ideas evolved through dialectical progress across history. Marx took this further, arguing that values are largely determined by material and economic conditions. In this view, what a society considers ethical is shaped by its mode of production and class relations.

The sociological school 🔗

Auguste Comte, the founder of positivism, argued that society operates according to scientific laws, similar to the physical world. Émile Durkheim refined this approach, maintaining that social sciences are a logical continuation of natural sciences into human activity. He insisted that sociology could retain the same objectivity and rationalism as physics or chemistry. Edward Westermarck ranks as one of the first to formulate a detailed theory of moral relativism, portraying all moral ideas as subjective judgments reflecting one’s upbringing. He argued that moral judgments are ultimately based on emotions rather than intellect.

The problem of determinism 🔗

A fundamental critique of all three schools centres on their deterministic implications. If values are wholly determined by biology, history, or society, then ethical choice and individual moral freedom become illusory. When morality is reduced to evolutionary adaptation, historical necessity, or social conditioning, the very notion of genuine moral deliberation disappears. This creates a paradox: the social scientist who claims values are determined must also acknowledge that their own scientific values-objectivity, truth-seeking, and empirical rigour-are equally determined, not chosen.

Gandhi’s ultimate values and God 🔗

For Gandhi, ultimate values like truth and non-violence were not products of evolution, history, or society. They were derivable from God-an indefinable power beyond proof. For Gandhi, truth was God and realising this truth was the ultimate purpose of life. He expounded the proposition that truth could only be realised through non-violence.

Gandhi’s concept of God transcended conventional religious understanding. He saw God not as a deity demanding rituals but as the ultimate reality-an impersonal force underlying the entire universe. Gandhi identified Truth with God, noting that while atheists may deny God’s existence, they cannot deny the power of Truth. Hence, for Gandhi, the two concepts became interchangeable.

However, social science as a discipline must part ways with this foundation. God’s existence cannot be proved or disproved scientifically and is inter-subjectively non-transmissible-meaning it cannot be verified by multiple independent observers using standardised methods. A claim that cannot be tested falls outside the domain of empirical inquiry.

The inner voice: Revelation versus intuition 🔗

One of the most controversial aspects of Gandhi’s decision-making was his reliance on what he called the “Inner Voice” or “Voice of God.” Gandhi described hearing a voice that was unmistakable-like some human voice definitely speaking to him, irresistible in its command. The hearing of this voice was preceded by what he described as a terrific internal struggle, after which the voice would come upon him suddenly, and his determination would be made.

This inner voice guided major decisions, including his famous fasts. Gandhi claimed his submission to God as Truth was so complete that he had no autonomy left-all his acts were prompted by this inner voice. He acknowledged that his claim was beyond both proof and reason.

A social scientist would approach such claims differently. They might attribute the inner voice to psychological factors-accumulated memory, subconscious processing, or what might be termed auto-suggestion. The key distinction between scientific intuition and religious revelation lies in their relationship to verification. Scientific intuition, while sometimes sudden and inexplicable, eventually submits to empirical testing. Gandhi himself acknowledged that not everyone claiming to hear the inner voice actually has that experience, noting that the faculty requires prior effort and training, much like any other human ability.

Revelation, however, is considered infallible and beyond verification. Gandhi stated that not even the unanimous verdict of the whole world against him could shake his belief. This places revelation firmly outside the domain of scientific inquiry, which requires claims to be testable and potentially falsifiable.

The concept of the soul 🔗

Gandhi frequently invoked the concept of the soul in his philosophy and practice. He called satyagraha “truth-force” or “soul-force,” distinguishing it from mere physical resistance. The very meaning of satyagraha-holding fast to truth-was inseparable from the idea that truth operates through spiritual rather than material power.

Gandhi described fasting as a spiritual act addressed to God-a means of quickening the spirit of prayer. He believed that fasting without living faith in God was merely useless starvation. His approach to nature cure and other physical disciplines was similarly justified as means to purify or liberate the soul.

Satyagraha aims to eliminate antagonisms without harming the antagonists themselves, seeking to transform or purify relationships rather than destroy them. This transformative power, Gandhi believed, flowed from the soul’s inherent connection to truth.

Yet the soul’s existence, like God and the Inner Voice, is not empirically verifiable. No scientific instrument can detect or measure the soul. No controlled experiment can establish its properties. The concept remains meaningful within religious and philosophical frameworks, but it falls outside what social science can affirm or deny.

Social science and Gandhian values as hypotheses 🔗

Given these limitations, how can social science engage with Gandhian thought? The answer lies in treating Gandhi’s ultimate values as working hypotheses rather than established truths.

Discarding the unprovable foundations-God, the Inner Voice, the Soul-a social scientist must focus on what can be observed and tested. This means examining: whether Gandhian methods actually produce the outcomes Gandhi claimed; whether satyagraha is an effective strategy for social change; whether communities organised around truth and non-violence function better than those that are not; and whether the social order Gandhi envisioned is internally consistent with his stated values.

Durkheim argued that sociology should extend scientific rationalism to human conduct. Applied to Gandhi, this means analysing his social programmes-constructive work, village self-sufficiency, communal harmony-as testable propositions rather than articles of faith.

The empirical task becomes one of consistency analysis. If Gandhi advocated truth as the supreme value, we can examine whether his proposed social structures actually promote truthfulness. If non-violence is meant to transform opponents, we can study whether satyagraha campaigns historically achieved such transformation or merely forced compliance through different forms of pressure.

The limits of scientific neutrality 🔗

This approach has its own limitations. Westermarck argued that moral judgments are ultimately based on emotions, suggesting that even the scientist’s choice to study Gandhi-or to value scientific inquiry itself-reflects emotional and social conditioning rather than pure rationality.

The positivist approach also faces criticism for overlooking human meanings and motivations. Critics argue that treating Gandhi’s values as mere hypotheses misses their existential significance. For Gandhi, truth and non-violence were not hypotheses to be tested but life commitments to be lived.

The value of the exercise 🔗

Despite these tensions, examining Gandhi through a social scientific lens serves important purposes. It separates the testable from the untestable, allowing us to evaluate Gandhian programmes on their practical merits. It encourages intellectual humility-acknowledging that ultimate values cannot be scientifically proven does not mean they are worthless, only that their acceptance involves a choice that lies beyond science.

Most importantly, this approach places the responsibility for accepting or rejecting Gandhi’s ultimate values where it belongs-with the individual reader. Science can inform the decision by showing whether Gandhian methods work, but it cannot make the decision for us. Whether to commit oneself to truth and non-violence as supreme values remains a personal, existential choice that each person must make for themselves.

What do you think? Can we meaningfully separate Gandhi’s practical methods from his spiritual foundations, or are they inseparably linked? If science cannot prove ultimate values, what basis do we have for choosing between competing moral frameworks?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edvard_Westermarck
2. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comte/
3. https://iep.utm.edu/emile-durkheim/
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
5. https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1665-26732012000300006
6. https://philosophy.institute/indian-philosophy/gandhis-concept-god-truth/
7. https://iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol18-issue4/H01846769.pdf
8. https://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap05.php
9. https://lithub.com/on-gandhi-and-nonviolence-as-a-spiritual-virtue/
10. https://www.gandhiashramsevagram.org/mind-of-mahatma-gandhi/the-inner-voice.php
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha
12. https://www.gandhiashramsevagram.org/mind-of-mahatma-gandhi/fasting-and-satyagraha.php
13. https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Satyagraha
14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
15. https://filosofia.fi/fi/arkisto/westermarcks-ethical-relativism
16. https://revisesociology.com/2015/05/19/positivism-sociology-social-research/