In the last post I briefly mentioned the concept of moral relativism. I anticipated getting a few complaints from at least a few people who recognized the idea. Still others might be familiar with the concept, but they don't know it by name. Basically, when someone has an objection, specifically a moral objection, to some aspect of a culture and they are told, "Well, that's the way they do things. We can't judge them by our morality.", this is moral relativism in practice. In theory, the idea is as weak as a house of cards, blown to pieces by the slightest breath of a thought. Since this idea is an integral part of the liberal conceit I mentioned in the last post, I figured it wouldn't hurt to explore a little more why I don't think it's a viable theory.
First of all, if morality were strictly a cultural phenomenon, then by what standard would these cultures decide upon, or naturally develop, their morality? You could say that they do what's best for their people. But this "doing best", already presupposes a moral principle. It begs the questions: Why ought they do what's best, by what standard is something "best", and all to what end? Obviously different cultures have different customs and priorities, but these are largely a matter of practicality, style, and circumstances. For instance, keeping people warm is probably a higher priority in the Eskimo culture than, say, in the Nigerian culture, and many of their customs may even be designed around that end. But whether you're talking about keeping Eskimos warm or Nigerians from being eaten by lions, the common denominator, the principle, is still the same: the preservation of human life. Moral relativism confuses the difference between ends and means. It leaves a culture with an engine, but no destination. It leaves morality as a set of motions with no purpose, no adherence to anything beyond the arbitrary whims of a particular culture. Under moral relativism murder is wrong because...well, because that's just not what we do here. Try the next town over.
Secondly, if morality were strictly a cultural phenomenon, then that would put morality completely under society's control. There would be no point in trying to stand up against any perceived injustices that you believe are being permitted in your society. According to moral relativism, society by definition is always right. The Holocaust? That's just the way the Nazis did things. We can't judge them by our morality. Jim Crow? That's just the way they did things back then. We can't judge them by our modern standards. Taken to its most logical conclusion, moral relativism, the refuge of ultra-liberals, ends up leading to the most conservative fascism imaginable. The status quo becomes the standard bearer of morality. In fact, there is an inherent contradiction between moral relativism and the liberal drive for progressive change. This drive is based on the implicit assumption that there are absolute principles worth striving towards. The really ironic part is that moral relativism itself is promoted by liberals on the basis of an absolute principle, tolerance. How do you like that for a contradiction?
Of course, moral relativism was never meant to be applied this way. It's light was never meant to shine on the likes of the Nazis. It was never meant to be a full-fledged, workable, theory. It is a rhetorical device, designed to disarm criticism. It's only meant to be applied to cultures who fall under the liberal rubric of "cultural diversity." When someone tells you, "We can't judge these people by our morality", what they're really saying is, "You're not allowed to say bad things about these people. They're poor."
As I said in the previous post, you don't hear as much about moral relativism as you used to. I remember when I used to spot subtle insinuations of it in all kinds of movies and TV shows. Nowadays, it seems that all but the extreme left have abandoned the idea. In fact, I think I can pin-point exactly where the theory died: the burka. That's where liberals found themselves face to face with the contradiction mentioned above. They couldn't dismiss something so obviously oppressive to women, something so clearly at odds with their own feminist values. And rightly so! It was refreshing to see them take a stand on something.
Finally, moral relativism is meant to promote understanding and appreciation of other cultures, but it actually acts as a wedge, driving us apart. It treats morality as an untranslatable language, indecipherable from one culture to the next. Instead of encouraging us to find value in other cultures, it dismisses the concept of value altogether. It assumes from the outset that such & such a society would fail a moral evaluation, so it throws away the test form and declares that everyone gets a passing grade. With it's policy of unlimited permission, it undoes our motivation to better ourselves as a species. It's one thing to keep an open mind, to appreciate the differences between us, but we mustn't be afraid of standards. We need standards. We need stars to reach for.
I wrote this post, and the previous post about a month and a half ago, before this new "season" started. I wasn't sure what the response to the previous post would be, so I wrote this one as a follow-up. Moral Relativism warranted some consideration in its own right.
ReplyDeleteHere in Britain where the US phenomenon of liberal vs conservative doesn't occur (except where imported like every other American fad) moral relativism isn't so much a principle, more a form of hypocrisy to hide behind.
ReplyDeleteSomewhere at the back is a vague idea of equality, where every culture, ethnic group and other form of difference is equally worth celebrating. This is a nice fluffy virtuous thing to teach in primary school.
In adult practice it translates into policing no-go areas. The police are already considered racist, and it's very hard for them to intervene where their very intervention is interpreted as proof, and a possible cause of riots. So they stay out of things.
Concrete example: if a young Asian woman of a particular religious culture starts dating boys based on sexual attraction rather than parental wishes, she may be considered a slut and a dishonour to the family. So the family pay a hit-man. She's found dead. It's called "honour killing". Till it became a scandal, the police did not think it was particularly their business to ask too many questions. Same thing with forced marriages.
Then there is the umbrella-word "multiculturalism" which has included, and probably still does, tolerance of moral relativism.
But in contrast to what I perceive to be the case in US, there is a consciousness on both sides that high-minded principles are not involved, just uneasy compromise hidden under the cloak of hypocrisy. Under the ever-present risk of fatwas (e.g. Salman Rushdie) and terrorist attacks, other moral systems must be placated.
The most egregious example, though it was spun to its most lurid potential by the media, was a remark by the Archbishop of Canterbury that sooner or later, sharia law would be recognized in the UK. This is rather a violent and old-fashioned system of law that for example gives a man's word twice as much credibility as a woman's. Allegedly.
@Vincent: "Somewhere at the back is a vague idea of equality, where every culture, ethnic group and other form of difference is equally worth celebrating. This is a nice fluffy virtuous thing to teach in primary school. "
ReplyDeleteThere is something of that motive here as well. I kind of understand where they're coming from, and it almost seems like a laudable goal, or at least one that originates from a place of openness and understanding. The problem is how ugly it gets in practice, when that openness is grossly misplaced, like the honor-killings you mentioned.
I realize too that many times when people say, "We shouldn't judge them by our morality.", they aren't necessarily advocating full-fledged relativism, but rather a kind of moral agnosticism. It's like, "Who are we to say?" Well, it's true that none of us are perfect, or necessarily in a position to cast the proverbial first stone. But while morality may be tricky, I don't think it's completely unknowable. If, say, there was a culture where they drown babies born with Downs' Syndrome in a river, or they hung them from trees and tried beat "the devil" out of it, I don't think many people would rise to their defense.
@Vincent(again): I gather too, from what you're saying, that relativism is more cynically and pragmatically applied in the UK than in the US. I can definitely see that. Here it's like a lofty ideal, held by people who indulge foreign cultures...but at arm's length. They have a romantic perspective on other cultures, and they wouldn't want to be confronted by the rude realities of "fatwas" and "honor killings".
ReplyDeleteI remember a story in the news years ago where a kid fell into the gorilla pit at the zoo. The mother gorilla gently scooped up the child and brought it to the door where she was fed from. For the piece, they interviewed some professor of something or other, and asked her if a gorilla would do the same thing in the wild. Without hesitation she said, "Absolutely!" I somehow doubt that she would have quite as much faith if she found herself dropped in the middle of the jungle.
Many people here are deliberately naive in the same way about other cultures.
Very interesting. I remember more of this in the 70s. Reading about how poor, inner city moms disciplined their kids so much more harshly than middle class moms because they "had to" in order for them to survive. The example they gave was a child going too close to the stove while something was cooking and the mother sticking the child's finger in the flame. It struck me at the time as abusive and still does! The author was excusing the behavior because poor mothers often had to leave very young children alone in the house and so they "had to" learn fast not to play around the stove. Of course, also excusing leaving the kids alone in the house.
ReplyDelete@Mouse: Youch!! I never heard that one. "Sticking the child's finger in the flame"?? I wonder how they took care of the whole running with scissors thing. It's like, "Here, gimme those." (stabs the kid in the thigh with them) "Yeah, that stings a little, don't it? Well, think about that while mama's out at the office." Yeah, strikes me as a little abusive too!
ReplyDeleteThe sad thing is that they probably thought they were championing the cause of single, working mothers with this kind of nonsense. Hopefully such mothers didn't exist, or were at least rare, beyond their misguided imaginations.
As a teacher, we are made to read about this idea of understanding others. Books like "Other People's Children" and "Courageous Conversations about Race" are posited to educators so that we will understand our charge and better teach the individual student. But I keep coming back to this: If the student in my classroom comes from a family/culture/religion/whathaveyou that does not value education and that student never takes school seriously, then why am I responsible for that student? If we are to truly embrace the background of our students, but the student's background is exactly what is keeping that student from learning and being successful in school, then shouldn't we just accept it and, in the words of GWBush, leave the child behind? Instead, we educators are told to embrace both worlds: learn of and accept every student's culture, but also teach every student like education is the most important thing in the world.
ReplyDeleteI also like the comment about the burka. I remember reading the Alice Walker novel "Possessing the Secret of Joy" in college and asking my professor why there isn't more outrage in the world about female genital mutilation. Her response was that it's a cultural thing and who are we to impose our values...yadda yadda yadda. It seems the burka is enough to enrage the liberal masses, but genital mutilation isn't.
The burka, I'm afraid, probably simply has a better PR manager....or worse, maybe. ;)
ReplyDeleteThe valuing education point is spot on. My daughter goes to school with kids from a number of different backgrounds. Either from their parents or their peers many of these kids have absorbed the notion that doing well in school and going on to college is a "white people thing." If this isn't a train headed on a fast track to no where, then I don't know what it is. It's an absolute tragedy that these kids have been led to think that being successful in school means selling out their own culture. Apparently someone is a little bitter about the failures of their own life.
Moral relativism, like Azimov's psychohistory, is not a thing that can be looked at accurately on an item by item or minute by minute basis, but only works when you use society as a whole and over the span of many years. There are places in this world even today where it is acceptable and expected for you to kill your enemies and eat them in order to absorb their energy and help protect your tribe. But the lager world society as a whole does not accept this sort of thing. For hundreds of years the Roman Catholic church condoned and even encouraged public acts of self flagellation. Now it is not done because society at large no longer accepts it. Thus, moral relativism changes, as it should, slowly with the passage of time. But I think this thing we have now should be renamed "Liberal Moral Relativism". It's no longer society that decides what is or isn't wrong. It's one or two people who decide "This thing offends me. It is wrong." Then they scream their prejudices aloud and file lawsuits and make a nuisance of themselves until society gives in just to shut them up.
ReplyDeleteBut then it's early and I'm still groggy and haven't had enough coffee yet. Hopefully I made a crumb of sense.
Well, I think our ideas about morality definitely change and evolve over time. There's no question of that. However, I think the actual standard of morality is contingent on our fundamental nature as human beings. When we say things like theft or murder is wrong, I'd like to think that we mean more by this than just the simple fact that society, or our society, frowns on these things. I like to think that we say these things because of a certain inherent value that we find in human life, and because when we consider the realities of that life, we find that certain things work best for its happiness and potential.
ReplyDeleteI’d like to put in a very cautious and qualified defence of moral relativism, with the example of female genital mutilation as mentioned by Brent Wescott.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned burkhas and PR management in this context, illustrating that the general public is ill-qualified to judge these kinds of issue without the intervention of experts who can explain the issues.
I am against the burkha but for reasons possibly different from those commonly presented by PR management. Would be happy to discuss that later. Let us return to this topic of female genital mutilation, previously known as female circumcision, till its own PR management got to work on making it sound worse than ordinary (male) circumcision.
I’m not defending it. I’m convinced that it is wrong, but it takes proper information to make that judgement, and clearly there are advocates as well as opponents. I don’t know of any moral issue against (male) circumcision. Most people have no idea about the female equivalent or non-equivalent, and quite understandably don’t want to know and have no need to know.
Sensible politicians will not take sides until they have counted the risk to their votes. That’s not immoral, that is how democracy is supposed to work.
So it is difficult to talk about such things as though there is an obvious moral evil. At street level, away from the ivory towers of experts, there is prejudice on one side (“It’s wrong because it’s an alien concept to the group I belong to”) and simple ignorance on the other (“I don’t know whose testimony to trust, so I won’t make the judgement”).
Dispassionately therefore (I was there were less passion in these typically American debates) I say that in many issues the person in the street doesn’t need a moral opinion at all. There are laws, product of a democratic system which is the best we have been able to come up with, bad though it may be. Let us follow the laws and not judge morality.
But yet the law-makers themselves must be guided by something, don't they?
ReplyDeleteThese questions of how people reach their particular moral conclusions, who they turn to as moral authorities, and so on, are complicated...I'll give you that, and I'm certainly not looking to engage or try to un-entangle that mess. But aside from all that, it seems that with moral relativism you always reach a point where principle is founded in mid-air, completely arbitrary. Whether you're talking about law-makers or the population at large, you reach a point where the principles of such and such a society are principles "just because...." I think morality has to have roots, if it's going to flourish as a tree. Like I said to the Rev above, I think those roots have to be based in the value of human life, the conditions best suited for it to thrive, and possibly even the idea of what rights might be inherent to that existence. These things themselves are difficult to sort out (as we well know), but I really believe that if you're going to talk morality, you have to start somewhere like this. Relativism always makes their final stop at some station along the way, some cultural flavor or social practice, and they refuse to proceed further on the grounds that establishing universals will be exclusionary and end up stepping on someone's toes. Like I said in the post, this is a decision that is, paradoxically, itself based on a principle: openness and tolerance.
Law-makers should certainly be guided by extreme caution. They're always faced with the tricky task of drawing the line between what's right, and what they have the right to enforce as law. To me, a loose rule of thumb, would be looking at whether other people are being hurt by something. Like the gay marriage issue here in America. Aside from people's various "moral" objections, I think the question comes down to: does the law have the right to interfere? Are these people hurting anyone? However, I don't envy these law-makers in their task.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the "arguments in favor" of female mutilation, I would say that these arguments are based on some dubious premises. 1.) It considers women as basically property with no rights what-so-ever. 2.) It makes the assumption that the female orgasm leads inherently to female promiscuity. I think we can both agree that both of these premises aren't very fair to women.
As for what the law should do about these things? Well, like I said, I don't envy their task. The simple answer would be that it's a horrible injustice and it should be stopped, and that people are getting hurt. But as you point on, things on the ground aren't always that simple. I can understand that.
(i'm making a mess of these edits)
ReplyDelete[correction: I meant to say in my last para “I wish there were less passion”]
Yes I agree with you Bryan but old customs are old customs, embedded in the “wisdom” of the elders of closed societies, and often outlive their validity. We need only to look as far as the Old Testament and the Koran for examples. The arguments against female genital mutilation are 100% valid, but the arguments in favour may be moral too, in their terms, to keep a woman faithful to her husband.
I’m guessing but I think to the elders on my street, the ones who live next to the mosque and see themselves tasked with upholding the moral standards of their grandchildren and great grandchildren, the moral hazards of living in England are huge. They see white girls behaving like whores, in their view. Forced marriages, which we abhor, and which are illegal under our law, are seen by them as ways to keep their entire moral system from collapse.
Meanwhile, the spectre of Islamist terrorism haunts us. What are its roots? I think some of it is sparked by the sense of Western immorality. We find Islamism repugnant but we fear it because it’s like an infection resistant to antibiotics.
I find moral relativism repugnant too, but find a little give-and-take on idealism (or rather, not interfering with other people’s cultures) preferable to a bloodbath.
So I think the law-makers should be guided by extreme caution.
Well as for "gay marriage", this is a linguistic red rag to the bull.
ReplyDeleteI'm not religious but marriage has religious roots based on making the reproduction imperative sacred. Adding the adjective in front changes the meaning of the word. That needs more consent than has been sought or given.
Big mistake. It should have been called "civil partnership" but have similar provisions as marriage. That would have reduced the controversy and eliminated the "hurt".
(My validation word is "bercu". Burkha you too, Blogger!)
nah, I've deleted that correction comment too. Might as well make a big mess. if you didn't have comment moderation (he said, shifting the blame) I could have fixed it earlier.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think the idea of calling it a "civil union" was tried at one point, and similar arguments have been advanced recently about the meaning of the concept of marriage. In their position, I suppose I might accept "civil union" as simply a horse of a different color, but they have been quite adamant that they specifically want "marriage" and they want it to be called "marriage." While we're talking give-and-take on idealism, I'd certainly be willing to give ground on semantics if it makes them happy.
ReplyDeleteI deleted the comment that referred to the deleted comment, but now I think that just made things for confusing. Oh well.
ReplyDeleteIt's a good thing I waited for this to play out a little, otherwise there would have been numerous comments from me consisting of nothing but "I.." "But..." "Well,..." "I think..."
ReplyDeleteI'm sure glad I'm not in an actual room live with you two. It would be like watching a Chinese Olympic Ping Pong match. Sheesh.
People often confuse "rights" with "Right".
This is right.
I have a right to do that.
I have a right to do this whether you think it is right or not.
You may have a right to do that but I have the right not to be exposed to it because I feel it's not right.
It's a slippery semantic slope.
Say that five times fast!
Yeah, it gets a little confusing. :)
ReplyDeleteWhy do you want to make the gays happy in preference to the Christians? Is it because you think the Christians will turn the other cheek? (I nearly made a further remark, but am learning to restrain my fingers on this keyboard.)
ReplyDeleteThat's alright, I think I can carry the pun the rest of the way myself.
ReplyDeleteIt's not so much wanting to make group happy over the other, or taking sides. It just seems to me that the Christians are sticking their noses so much deeper in the gays'....business (I'll try to restrain my own puns.) You have a group on one side, wanting only the use of a word and an institution, and I don't see how this hurts the Christians in any fundamental way. It's not like marriage is some limited commodity, and gays are going to gobble up the supply and not leave any marriage left for "good wholesome Christians"
Perhaps they think of marriage as well of fresh water that's going to be soiled. Well, 1.) Here in America, we have drive-thru wedding chapels where people don't even have to get out of their cars. I'd say the well is already soiled, if that's possible. 2.) Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on my part, but I don't see how gay marriage is going to have any bearing on straight marriages. Marriage seems to me to be a private thing. It's a relationship between me and my wife. How other people define that relationship between them and their spouses, the genders involved, the nature of the relationship, whether they're going to "swing" or only have sex through a hole in a sheet ect., seems to be absolutely no business of mine whatsoever, and I can't imagine what difference it would make to my own marriage.
So, again, it's not that I have any particular dog in that fight. I just really have a problem with self-righteous people sticking their nose in other people's business, so in that regard, my sympathies lie with the gays on that one. It seems to be that the Christians are going to have to come up with a better justification than a defense of a word for such extreme meddling. If some village idiot in Kentucky wants to call a horse apple, a chocolate bar, it isn't going to change the taste of chocolate in my mouth.
And this all points out the problem with the "give-and-take" approach. There's usually two or more sides of an issue, so it's not like there's usually just one party to make unilateral concessions to. So how do the lawmakers decide? By siding with the more intimating party, so as to avoid a "bloodbath"? For one thing, I'd hope that the lawmakers might show a little more backbone than that, and stand up for a principle now and then. For another thing, I don't think that capitulating to intimidation is ever a good policy is the long run. It only sets a precedent and encourages more intimidation. If you give preferential treatment to the people who castrate women again their will, won't the gays and every other group eventually realize that maybe blowing up a few buildings might get them the respect and leverage they need?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Bryan. No more questions.
ReplyDeleteYay! Does that mean I win? Do I get a chocolate bar?
ReplyDeletePossibly, but it's for the jury to decide, not me!
ReplyDeleteIt has certainly clarified my view.
....and "castrate" up there should obviously be "circumcise" or "mutilate" or some other fine word that actually makes sense in that context.
ReplyDeleteWow, what a mistake!
I'm not going to get started again on this but I never noticed 'castrate', because other words seemed much more out of place, such as 'need'. But I shall wear thick gardening gloves if necessary to prevent my fingers wandering over the keyboard any more in response to this topic and its provocations!
ReplyDeleteWell, it wasn't my intention to provoke anything.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I suppose "need" should also be "want" or "desire", but I didn't mean anything by that, and I certainly didn't mean that they would be taking such drastic actions out of necessity. If anything, the word was only used to convey the urgency that anyone feels towards their own agenda. Anyone who resorts to such extreme tactics does so because they feel it's something they "need" to do. The word was used to express their hypothetical urgency, not my own.
Apparently this discussion has become more heated than I realized.
I also get the sense that you may have taken things I've said elsewhere a little more to heart than I intended. Behind all these remarks about "restraining your fingers" and what-not, I think I faintly hear an axe grinding in the background.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't my intention to provoke anything then either. I wasn't judging, but rather just sharing my take on a situation.
No, the point for me is that arguing about things like this is a displacement activity for the "proper writing" I yearn to do, when the inspiration comes. My next blog post may clarify.
ReplyDeleteI just realized there are things best left alone by me.
Well, I agree with that. These debates can be helpful to a point, and then they start going round in circles, and...yes, distract us from other, more productive, endeavors.
ReplyDeleteNow that there's a slight pause in the action, I can find a point to poke my stick. Since we wandered way off topic anyway, I thought "Why the hell not?" Just for snits and giggles and there does seem to be a sore spot located just about here.
ReplyDeleteI think the gays should abandon their marriage plan and immediately start lobbying for a referendum forever banning christian marriage. It's obviously a literal breeding ground for extremists and hate groups.
Let the hunter become the hunted again for awhile and see how they like it.
Ha, that would be hilarious.
ReplyDelete(You sure you're not just looking for a vacation from the wife. "Sorry dear, they outlawed our marriage. Where's my fishing pole?")
To go back to the post (and avoiding the minefields of these comments -Ha! Turning their cheeks. Gays. Giggle - if there were to be a universal standard for morality, Bryan, who gets to set it? I doubt if the world will accept my authority in the matter, and I'm not thrilled with the idea of someone else imposing his morality on me.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Doug: Well, no one sets it. It's set by the existence of life, and the realities with which life has to deal. All the rules and customs and trappings which we call "morality" are just people's ideas on what would best serve that life and how that life should interact with each other and how best that life should conduct its affairs. Life itself becomes the standard by which those ideas can be compared.
ReplyDeleteLet's say you had a vegetable garden in your back yard. You and your neighbor and your neighbor's neighbor might all have different ideas on what makes the plants grow best in that garden. Now wouldn't it be dumb to say that anyone decides the best way for the plants to grow? And wouldn't it be dumb to say that what works depends on who's yard the garden is in? Like you could spray the garden down with battery acid and your neighbors will have no cause to shake their heads, because it'll work, it's your yard!
Clearly there's a best way for the plants to grow, and you and your neighbors are just scratching your heads trying to figure out what that is. There maybe different things you can try that will work, but in the end it's all contingent on what actually makes the plants grow. Moral relativism denies even the possibility of tried and truth methods, and just says, "Hey it's your yard. Piss on the plants if you want. Who are we to judge?"
So your question of "who sets the standard?", already presupposes that it's all subject to nothing but some arbitrary whim on someone's part, as though the turning of the planets themselves were up to someone to decide.
I guess you are right, I do assume it is arbitrary. But then perhaps we need to define exactly what we mean by "morals." Do Not Murder is an obvious one that I think transends all healthy cultures (as long as we agree on the word "murder." Is execution murder?) But how about Thou Shalt Not Engage in Bigamy, or No Sex Outside the Sanctity of Marriage. Both are considered immoral in our culture, just dandy in other cultures, and either way it can be argued the proscribed activities don't hurt individuals.
ReplyDeleteI think what you mean by morals is more limited in scope than how it is usually used. Your list probably includes such goodies as No murder, theft or hurting others (without cause- there is always a caveat), and help those who need help when you can. Basic rules everyone can probably agree on. But when you say morals you bring to mind all the societal and religious restrictions we humans have, many of which contradict each other, and in that case I say yes, it is all arbitrary.
Well, yes Murder, Theft, and Injury would be the big three, but most of these more specific issues relate back to those in some way, and become the grounds for a moral debate on a subject. Take Bigamy. For me, any moral discussion of the issue is going to involve whether someone is being hurt or treated unfairly in the situation. Not physically hurt necessarily, but you know what I mean. Same thing goes for sex before marriage. Some people argue against it on the basis that it ruins people's lives. Some people say that abortion is murder, and so on. All these things are debatable, of course, and I'm not here to debate them, but they DO relate back to these fundamental issues in some way. If they don't, then I wouldn't properly consider them moral issues, but rather issues of custom.
ReplyDeleteNow, religious people (Christians for the sake of argument), would argue that morality is spelled out for them by the Bible. That is their privilege to believe that. However, even though the Bible spells out a specific code, it still begs the question of the foundation of that code. If we assume for the moment that God did give us strict guidelines to live by on stone tablets, then it seems that there would still have to be a reason God choose these specific guidelines. If he tells us that it's wrong to murder, then we presume he had a good reason for telling us so, and we're right back where we started. It's just that now we've posited an authority that's already figured these things out in advance, and we trust his word. If we say these things are right and good simply because "God says so", then God's goodness becomes a rigged game. God's "Holiness" becomes a meaningless term of self-reflection unless that holiness measures up against a standard apart from God. Otherwise, God is perfect and holy because he's God and he said so, and so...suck it!
I'll give you a good example. Many people talk about a moral imperative to "save the planet" Well, what do they mean, really? Ultimately they're talking about this planet's ability to support life. If pollution and runaway greenhouse effect turns the planet into a big melted ball of shit like Venus, we're the ones who are going to be screwed, not the planet, right?
ReplyDeleteThis is what I mean by morality always tracing back to life. It's possible, of course, that someone could build their idea of morality on a different foundation, but I think most of us, when talking morality, begin on the foundation of life and what's best for it. It's just from there that the arguments quickly start. :)
I don't disagree with anything you just said, and I'm glad I finally have a name for religious justification -The Suck It Argument.
ReplyDeleteBut this still leaves us with lots of ground to cover before we have our standardized morals. I don't particularly want to argue the morality of these issues either, but many people seem to want to do nothing but. If we stipulate there are moral issues which could legitimately have more than one answer, even if we strenuously disagree with what the other guy is saying, then that leaves us room for moral relativism, at least when we are not talking about The Big Three.
I do agree that your relativism can go too far, Nazis were a good example, but it can serve a valid purpose as well, else we breed intolerance and predudice against all cultures not our own because they are immoral.
Well, yes I agree that there might possibly be cases where there's more than one right approach, just as there might be more than one right approach to making the plants grow in the garden. But yet these approaches still have to measured against what makes the plants grow.
ReplyDeleteThe intolerance and prejudice comes in when some smug jackass comes up and says, "I know the right way to make things grow, and you have to do it MY WAY, and in 1936 I grew a squash as big as your f***ing head, and I will fight you for control of this garden!"
If you keep talking about your damn garden I am going to go shit in it :)
ReplyDeleteI guess my main point here is that moral relativism, if not taken too far, can serve as a societal lubricant, and shouldn't be dimissed out of hand. In other words, we can say, "Yeah, those bastards over on 34th Street use compost for their garden. That's a little weird, because everyone knows MiracleGrow is the best, but whatever floats their boat."
If, on the other hand, they are slitting the throats of nine-year old boys to fertilize their cucumbers, moral relativism has no place and we need to do what we can to stop that shit.
So I am not diagreeing with your stance in toto, but your version as I originally read it was in the form of an absolute, and very little in this world is completely black or white.
I just re-read your post, and what I am arguing isn't really too far from points you made. My problem, I guess, is your contention that moral relativism is to be judged at its most extreme end. "Different cutures do things in different ways," is the a bedrock in my personal beliefs, and I don't like that concept encrouched upon. I do agree with you, however, that this liberal mode of thought taken to its extreme is not only lazy thinking but does show an ingrained bias regarding "poor" cultures.
ReplyDeleteExtremism is rarely good or productive, and that applies to using moral relativism to not hold a society responsible, as well as refusing to consider the relative morals of a society or situation when judging a culture.
I do like the garden metaphor even if I teased you about it. However, I would phrase it, "As long as that green shit is growing, it is good enough for me."
There's also the fact that people have different realities of life and circumstances that they have to deal with, like my Eskimos up there in the post.
ReplyDeleteIt's not really an example of a moral issue, but I remember that my father-in-law always had this insistence that I should buy a pick up truck. He seemed to think that everyone should own a pick up truck. Well, I had no need for a pick up truck, and it wouldn't have worked for me in my situation. Some people are like that about morality.
So yes, there are different strokes for different folks, and different things work for different people, but this idea of "going with what works" and what is fair and just and humane is the universal principle that binds it all together.
That's all I've been saying. I can't imagine why there would be controversy over that, but apparently there is.
You really should have a pick-up, Bryan. What if you need to move furniture?
ReplyDeleteYou slipped in between comments there.
ReplyDeleteYes, I'd say a pinch of it here and a dash of it there might help to remind people to keep an open mind about the practices of other cultures. You're right, it's when it's taken to extremes, when people are turning blind eyes to oppression and murder and atrocity, that it becomes a problem.
Some people, many people, don't know where to draw that line and they end up getting carried away with the concept. They go from tribal dances to virgin sacrifice without batting an eye.
As for "Going with what works," that sounds easy, but in the Garden of Life it isn't as easy to measure growth and adjust fertilizer methods as it is with your ten-by-ten plot in the backyard. We've has thousands of years of trial and error, but except when some douchbag Nazi is spreading battery acid over our tomato plants, it is hard to objectively measure the results of our actions.
ReplyDeleteI applaud the idea, but I have a hard time believing your idea of natural universal morality exists in the. real world. At some point someone has to stand up and say "This is right. That is wrong."
Yes. That line that is hard for some people to see. THAT is usually where authority, of whatever stripe, has to declare what is moral and what is dastardly. It is because that line has been crossed so many times in human existance that I believe your standards will have to be artificially enforced, and then we have the issue of who decides.
ReplyDeleteAs for the real issue, the moral relativity, it seems we are basically in agreement. The garden must grow.
Okay, now I think I'm getting nauseated by this garden metaphor :)
ReplyDeleteBut yes, it's not easy to tell, and "growth" in this case is a messy, complicated process. That's why we have so many disagreements and even wars over these issues.
"The Garden of Life" was a little pompous. Wasn't it? :)
ReplyDeleteHow can you have a garden and not a pick-up? How do you get your soil and fertilizer home?
I have a team of trained ferrets that carry it all.
ReplyDeleteEver notice that in that moment you are in need of a pen, the only thing you seem to have access to are pencils that have long lost their lead?
ReplyDelete...and NO DAMN PENCIL SHARPENER!!!
ReplyDeleteYou can carry a lot of pencil sharpeners in the bed of a pick-up. Maybe you should look into that.
ReplyDelete:|
ReplyDeleteDoug is a huge proponent of trucks. I think we should fashion his with one of those nifty 50 calibur guns and a few dusty head rags to conceal his identity with for his upcoming campaign.
ReplyDelete