| | Moral RelativismThere seems to be great misunderstanding of what the word "relative" means when applied to morality. I constantly encounter people who assume that "moral relativists" have no basis for morality, which is far from true.
Below are two of several recent responses to such issues. Important points are in bold font and underlined or have ** beside them for the excessively-time-pressed:
To SkyMarshalOz:
I think we may not be using the same definition of morality. I use the definition found, for example, in dictionary.com: morality - "conformity to the rules of right conduct." And I acknowledge that different societies, eras, groups, and individuals espouse different rules. IF rules change, then by this definition morality changes. Perhaps if you suggest a different set of definitions/perspectives, I may agree with your idea of "absoluteness." ??
>> You wrote: "It is a logical fallacy to make the assumption that
>> simply because people disagree on what is moral, morality is relative.
>> The only thing relative about morality is people's views on it."
It is TRUE that what is relative about morality is perspective. That is sufficient to warrant the term "relative." Perspectives are all we have. Yes, we have reason (and emotion), but people use those according to their PERSPECTIVE(s) too. No one has been able to escape perspective in order to sufficiently justify belief in such a thing as an "absolute morality," at least so far as I have yet heard. Claiming that one's morals are "absolute" is merely tantamount to trying to assert one's perspective in the face of everyone else. The "absoluteness" of one's ideas of morality currently exists only IN ONE'S HEAD and the heads of those who agree with him/her/it.
The word "absolute" is unnecessary for morality to exist, thrive, or succeed. It is more important and relevant to argue for moral rules based on reason, and to try to convince others that a rule is good because it is reasonable and will have desirable results. Morality does not need to deny multiple perspectives in order to be effective. ALL that is necessary is that a group of people agree to some degree on some set of rules for themselves.
Group A could have a (relatively) happy, just, harmonious society with laws-A. Group B could disagree with laws-A and go off and form their own society with laws-B, and theoretically, theirs could be a (relatively) happy, harmonious, just society too. Problems may develop if the two try to live together under only one set of either laws-A or laws-B. Perhaps they could eventually synthesize laws applicable to both groups.
Relativism is not dishonest or insincere. As I've said, "it merely acknowledges that not all people/organisms/things share the same perspectives/ goals/ aims/ ideas/ values," which is a fact of life. You yourself acknowledge the same. That's all "relative" means.
** There is no logical fallacy in using the term "relative" to describe something that varies according to perspective; that is THE WHOLE POINT of the term. One person may CLAIM to possess access to a theoretical "absolute morality," but can he convince others that HIS PERSPECTIVE is correct? IF he can convince people, then their morality will be "absolute" to the extent to which all believe that it is absolute and refuse to compare their morality to any other perspectives. An outsider may still consider such morality "relative." It is also true that something can be "absolute" from one perspective and "relative" from another.
** Morality changes. Some individual may argue that morality doesn't change and that only people's opinions change. However, such is merely a linguistic/semantic game and the assertion of a particular perspective. You may assert that other people's rules of right conduct are "not true rules of right conduct." Such would be a semantic game.
** The word "morality" is defined (by dictionary.com for example) as "conformity to the rules of right conduct." Well, "rules of right conduct" change/evolve.
Morality changes:
- Example 1: It is a fact, not an opinion, that ancient Greeks and Romans for the most part acknowledged the 'rightness' of slavery. While it was not immoral for them, in their minds, it is considered wrong/immoral by a majority (but not all) of people in the USA today. Does this make modern opinions invalid? NO!
- Example 2: The Yahweh of Jewish literature killed a man for collecting firewood on Saturday and was called "just" by worshippers. He also ordered the killing of Canaanite children on occasion (e.g. 1 Sam 15). Today, many people would consider those things immoral, although fundamentalists still defend them.
- Example 3: Also in Jewish myth, Yahweh punished the descendents(!!) of Ham following Noah's curse, which was due to a minor incident involving being seen naked and perhaps mocked while drunk. Non-Judeo-Christian people are free to criticize both Noah and Yahweh as acting in an unjust, immoral, childish, vengeful manner. Is personal ridicule justification for the oppression of generations?
- Example 4: In the ancient world, men invented rules and passed them off as divinely ordained in order to increase their prestige; now, people more often appeal to reason and logic to win acceptance for proposed rules. Such simple facts are sufficient to show that morality is relative to perspectives. Morality evolves over time. This is even true of Judeo-Christian morality.
** I think it is VERY important to note that at its ROOT, the word "morality" is from Latin (MOS, MORIS) which means "HABIT, CUSTOM, USAGE, WONT, regular practice/rule/law, or the will/inclination of a person." Many Romans would refer to the "mores maiorum," the customs of their ancestors, as a standard for determining what is good or bad, right or wrong. "Morality" is the abstract noun (moralitas) formed from "mos, moris."
Whether "relative" or "not", societies will develop/exhibit laws, "justice," custom/morality because it is natural, useful, and inevitable for such things to (have) develop(ed).
Even given the relative nature of morality, justice IS definitely possible, although it may be limited by the nature and perspectives of the individuals comprising society, as most things are. Despite the fact that human societies have different laws and different ideas of right and wrong, in each society there are concepts of justice, and it is important for each society to address the concept. The root of "justice" is a Latin word (IUS, IURIS / jus, juris) which means "right, law." Although ideas of what-justice-is can change, this does not necessarily mean justice does not exist. That justice is relative does not negate its importance!! It is critically important for any society both A) to try to create good laws that will cause the society to prosper and have harmony, and B) to value the keeping/enforcing of the law(s). In my opinion, those laws should be based on reason, and laws based on reason will be better able to stand the test of time and will better ensure success.
** In my household, we have unwritten morals based generally upon ideas of love and truth/honesty, and they work for my household. I recognize that my morals are relative to my perspective and that others may have different views on how I should behave. My acknowledgement of others' opinions does not render my morals useless, ineffective, baseless, or meaningless. They work for me and my household. Some specifics within our unwritten rules/morals/customs could change over time. Allowance for change is probably wise, if not inevitable.
--------------
>> You wrote: "If there are no absolute moral laws, than upon what basis should mankind's laws be based?"
First, I would note that currently, there is no such thing as a single set of "the laws of mankind" to which all adhere without disagreement.
But to answer the question:
*** Laws and Morals should be based on reason/logic, study, comparison/consideration of multiple and potential perspectives, experience, available wisdom (sifted), careful consideration of the desires/ goals/aims of the laws' makers and subjects, and careful consideration of cause-effect relationships and likely consequences of said laws. In my opinion, ideals such as love, truth, honesty, liberty, individual rights, education, and holistic and long-term thinking should play a part and will contribute to greater happiness for a greater quantity/quality.
--------
>> You wrote: "If you base it upon consent, then is it upon the consent of all,
>> or upon the consent of the majority?
>> It will be impossibly to base it upon the consent of all, and ..."
Consent of all would be nice. In my household, all consent. If that isn't possible at all or for a time, then consent of the majority will/may/must suffice, as it does in the USA, generally. If the majority is completely irrational and uncooperative and its members insist on violence and anarchy, then consent of a minority will/must suffice, as long as that minority is able to enforce its will. In a scenario of rampant anarchy and disagreement, eventually some group(s) will win power, at least in some location(s), and will establish rule of law/custom in that/those location(s). Such is the nature of things.
>> You wrote: "... if it is only based upon the consent of the majority,
>> then you are forcing the minority to conform to laws they do not believe to be moral."
True. That's what happens. That's the way it is in the USA and many other places. The only thing people can do is to resort to logical or emotional persuasion, reward/punishment, or compulsion (non-violent and/or violent) in order to gain adherents to their views/perspectives. Such is life.
>> And, what makes the majority any better than the minority anyways?
I don't know. Give me something specific. Did I say the majority is necessarily "better"? It may be "better" or "worse" in my opinion, from my perspective, depending on the issue and the particular constituents. From the perspective of the majority, the majority is usually "better" than the minority in its opinions. (Either that or they will try to change to line up with a particular "better" minority.) From the perspective of various minorities, their perspectives are usually "better" or more important (or else they will accept their inferiority). Such is the nature of things. The minority will either accept the situation, or it will use available means to try to persuade others to see/allow their perspective.
I hope that if any minority is "better," it will achieve its "better" goals. I hope that if any minority is "worse," it will fail to achieve its goals. Relativism does not inhibit my ability to use the terms "better" or "worse." It merely means that I acknowledge the existence of multiple perspectives. I am still able to appeal to reason or to appeal to potentially-shared goals/values and to argue for why something should be considered "better" or "worse" from my perspective and/or yours.
Multiplicity of perspectives does not negate the existence of any individual perspective, nor need it render individual opinions "meaningless."
---------
Speaking of CONSENT and relativity, I think it is interesting that ..
Even in Christianity (many of the adherents of which are especially known for arguing the existence of "moral absolutes"), morality is relative to the will of the deity. This is true regardless of whether they use the term "absolute" to apply to morality. Yet they do not think this diminishes the value of their morality, and they still consider.
Q: In Christianity, what is morality/right based upon?
A: ... Yahweh's personal will/whim/nature. To be "moral" is to conform to the will of the deity.
Tough luck for anyone who doesn't agree. "Might makes right" in Christianity. The will of any deity is only "absolute" to whatever extent he/she/it can and does dominate any who disagree. In the Christian imagination, Yahweh is almighty and can, thus, enforce his ideas of right and wrong. Theoretically, if "Satan" were to win and depose "Yahweh" and any of his followers who refused to convert, then whatever Satan said would be the new standard. [But of course Christianity will never choose to imagine that scenario, because they define/conceptualize their deity a priori as "all-powerful."]
In Christian imagination, does God use the categorical imperative before making any decision? Does Yahweh "act only according to that maxim whereby he can at the same time will that it should become a universal law"? Does not Yahweh pursue his will regardless of the will of others? Does he think all should do the same? Is murdering Canaanites morally good when Yahweh says so? Is it preferable to persuading them through reason or love? Does Yahweh choose force and the threat of eternal punishment to combat Satan, as opposed to reason and love? Why does Yahweh not have sufficient ability to reveal himself to all and reconcile all without threatening eternal punishment? Can he be no more persuasive? Can he not make his "superior" ways more apparent to all, without resorting to ineffective and dubious messengers to explain his nature/desires? Should all beings follow Yahweh's example and threaten dissenters with eternal punishment? I suggest a better story-line: that Yahweh perhaps try confining/limiting Satan for a while and hugging him a whole lot, or even giving him a separate planet for awhile so that he may live only with those who agree with him, in peace and not harming anyone. Perhaps over time he may change, and if he does not, at least no harm will be done and violence will not even be necessary. There's no cause for excessive anger or eternal punishment.
-----
Do "moral absolutes" exist? Yes. "Moral absolutes" exist in the minds of people who believe such things as follow: 1. Their view(s) of morality is/are the only correct or valid view(s), 2. Other perspectives either do not exist or are invalid, 3. Their view of morality is infallible, or at least some view is theoretically infallible, if only we could obtain it, 4. Morality does not change over time, even if ideas of morality change.
As plenty of people may note, such “moral absolutes” are merely relative to the perspectives of individuals who believe in them, existing in the minds of adherents and not demonstrably anywhere else. Yet that does not make their morals "meaningless."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------
To Bokanovskopia:
>> You ask: “Then what determines which values or rules are right for "our society"?”
The people in “our society” determine which values or rules are right.
>> You write: “There must at least be guidelines that govern how societies ought to devise rules and values that are right for their situation, especially considering the overlap between societies. One might call those guidelines "moral absolutes," but if they don't exist, then might makes right.”
I question your use of the word “must” in the first sentence. How about saying it would be helpful if such guidelines existed and were good/effective guidelines.
If they do not exist, it is not necessarily true that “might makes right.” Reason/ logic/ intellectual persuasion could also theoretically make ‘right.’ So could the use of rewards/incentives or appeals to emotion. Of course, someone could argue that these methods are still a form of “might,” which is a semantic issue and is fine by me.
Often might does decide what is “right.” That’s life. That’s history. Often, dissenters arise, and sometimes they are successful in challenging and changing the established order. I hope that ideas of what is right will continue to evolve in such a way that will emphasize love, truth, honesty, cooperation, harmony, holistic thinking, awareness and appreciation of multiple perspectives, and liberty with allowance for individual protection.
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have never heard anyone pull the relativity argument except with respect to bodily privacy.
I have, although it often seems to be a simple observation when it is expressed. It is simply an acknowledgement that opinions differ on matters of morals, and that opinions depend on perspectives. It is also a historical observation. It is an aspect of the nature of morality as a concept.
>> If you also believe that no absolute guidelines regulate how one should treat others, then I would be interested in your reasoning.
People treat others in accordance with their chemical make-up / genetics (including desires), experience, and beliefs / memes to which they adhere for one reason or another.
To establish how people should act is a matter of considering what is in the best interests of all concerned, or what are the goals of all concerned. That is not necessarily an easy task, but people attempt it all the time, in accord with their limited abilities/faculties. What are the desires / goals of the people involved? What cause-effect relationships will apply to various potential actions? i.e. Outcomes should be considered. The purpose of rules/morality is/ can be/ should be a practical one. People will develop rules in order to help themselves have some kind of order so that they may function more optimally. There is no need for rules to be absolute or universal. Human rules may not apply to ants or lions or artificial intelligences. Then again, sometimes they may. But a rule need not be unquestionable or unchangeable or universal in order to be obeyed or effective.
People may create a law against killing people in order to make society peaceful and prevent blood feuds (a frequent issue in history). But the law may not be universal or “absolute.” There may be allowances for killing people under certain conditions, like self-defense, accidents, war, punishment for certain crimes. Thus, the law would be relative to certain conditions, even if some members of society considered it “absolute” in the sense that they found it unquestionable and refused to imagine life without it or consider other perspectives. It should also be noted that such a law would be relative to humans; it does not concern other animals/ organisms/ things.
Maybe over time, people will develop to the point where the law against killing people is “absolute” in the sense that they believe no one should kill anyone for any reason. Even if this happens, such a law could be considered “absolute” in a limited sense relative to humans and only relative to the time period and individuals for which it met acceptance. Thus, it could be considered “absolute” according to one meaning of the word, yet simultaneously “relative” from another perspective. [Relativity is the mere acknowledgement of multiple perspectives.] Individual humans may still grow up and break such a law, thinking that they are doing “right” by killing someone they disagree with or someone who threatens them. By those individuals, the law would not be considered “absolute.” Yet the fact that the law would be relative from certain perspectives would not diminish its importance to the society, and as long as they would enforce it and could convince enough people of the value of the law relative to themselves, the law would be successful, in the minds of the people.
>>If you really believe that societies decide their own moral rules, then I would assume you consider gay marriage to be morally wrong, due to the fact that the majority of Americans oppose it.
Even if someone says gay marriage is morally wrong in the sense that it goes against the morality of a majority of Americans, I would still argue that gay marriage should not be considered morally wrong, and that the majority should change its ideas morality. I would appeal to reason, biology, and the potential for greater happiness for a greater number without any harm coming to anyone.
It is true that the USA, as a nation, decided “long” ago that homosexuality was “immoral,” “wrong,” contrary to the Christian customs and Biblical teachings that people valued. I think they were wrong. I think they based their ideas on faulty information and lack of experience/ perspective. I have many arguments from logic and history, and perhaps over time I and others can use reason and emotion and incentives and education in order to convince law makers to make allowances for homosexual unions and create a more harmonious society in the USA.
While homosexuality is “wrong” in the eyes of the majority, it is not “wrong” from my perspective. IF I can convince people that my perspective is good or better, then things will change. And I have no need to argue the existence of “absolutes,” only the logical validity or effectiveness of such a proposed change to accepted mores/morals.
>> You write: “You must also believe that the Iraq war was morally right when the majority of Americans supported it in 2003 but morally wrong now that most want out.”
Not true. I do not have to agree with the majority. Yes, in their minds it was “right,” but many have changed their minds (for their morals are not absolute or unchanging). Yes, in their minds it may now be “wrong.” Whether I agree or disagree is my prerogative. People often disagree. When we do, we use force or reason or emotion or reward/punishment etc. in order to win others over. Such is the nature of morality. It is an ongoing battle, whether fought by overt “physical might” or by subtler physical might, like reason, emotion, incentive, etc.
>> You write: “But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you really just believe that you have the right to dispose of your own body as you choose, but that disposing of someone else's body is a different matter altogether.”
I question the word “just” but agree with much of this statement. I do have such a right. Others may deny me this right, but hopefully they will not. Hopefully we can continue to agree upon a general desire to protect individuals from harm and allow individuals freedom so long as it does not cause harm. Such a statement as yours above is an example of relativity (rights relative to individuals), yet relativity encompasses much more than such a statement.
|
