Is such a thing even possible? I have been thinking that relativism is at the heart of the difference between the right and left.
I don’t think there are many liberal relativists either. I’m a moral absolutist myself. I think most people are when you get right down to it.
The only example of what might be called “right wing relativism” I can think of is when Biblical Fundamentalists try to defend some of the atrocities described in the OT by appealing to historical context and culture.
A sort of po-mo relativism also seems to crop up its head in theological and creationist debates these days, almost exclusively on the right-wing side of things. The idea that there is no objectively verifiable truth to anything is an important position when the objectively verifiable facts seem to run pretty hard against your beliefs. Turning everything into relativism per your beliefs allows one to bypass that and try to turn the discussion into an emotionalized referendum on whose beliefs are more wholesome, or whatever. Phillip Johnson, one of the founders of the modern intelligent design movement, seems to take this sort of position quite often.
The left wingers who hold truly relativist positions seem to be fruity woo people like Deepak Chopra or some really divorced from reality lefty lit professors.
But in the end they ARE relativists, even if they would be horrified at the thought. When they
deny the facts of the fossil record (and other related sciences) they are engaging in relativism,
making up the facts to fit their pet fundamentalist theories. The only difference is that the
various left wing relativists are aware of just how relative everything is (from their own
perspective).
Sometimes I object to certain religious beliefs (e.g., that men should be masters of their household and women should be subservient to their husbands), and those who hold the beliefs accuse me of being an anti-religious bigot for my objections. I’m not sure whether they really are moral relativists, or whether they falsely assume that I am and so are trying to get a good dig in at me; in either case, they are at least assuming the posture of a moral relativist when they suggest that attitudes with religious roots may not be subjected to ethical scrutiny.
Daniel
That’s not what moral relativism is, though. Moral relativism is the idea that there are no objective moral rules.
With the caveat that I’ve never read his books and I’m judging him by a few snippets of text, Irving Kristol looks to me like a very strong relativst both morally and epistemologically. He claims that there are different layers of truth, some apporpriate for the ruling elite and different ones appropriate for the great, unwashed masses. He had specifics, such as rejecting the idea of an impartial think tank. He said that when donating to think tanks, “Corporate philanthropy should not be, and cannot be, disinterested, but should serve as a means to shape or reshape the climate of public opinion.”
''We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."
There’s a strong postmodern streak in modern conservatism that sees reality as a construction rather than truth. That’s about as relativist as you can get.
The heart of left vs. right is the difference between empathy and greed.
A leftie says “There, but for the randomness of the day, go I” and want to help someone in need.
A rightie says “I got mine from Daddy. You get your own from your own daddy.”
Do you truly believe this? That a large percentage of people in the U.S. are shamelessly greedy bastards and that another large percentage are perfectly altruistic saints? Because to me, that seems a little simplistic, a little unrealistic. I know selfish liberals and generous conservatives. It’s easy sometimes to draw the battle line over some overarching moral value like compassion, but I’m convinced it’s a little more complex than that.
In foreign policy there is a “realist” school of international relations which advocates that states should tend to their own self-interest rather than trying to spread democracy or liberty or any other idealistic value. Such realists may also claim that some cultures are incompatible with or at least not “ready for” democracy or political liberty. Obviously this sort of realism has not been the reigning conservative theory of foreign relations for the past six years or so; I do tend to associate it with the presidency of George H.W. Bush. But in the past it has certainly had its champions on the political “right”. (The political “right” is of course no more monolithic than the political “left”.)
Somewhat similar to this is the sort of “pro-business” conservativsm which values opening markets and, well, making money, over the promotion of human rights or freedom. Both points of view tend to, in practice, lead to a lot of cozying up with dictators, often with a kind of shrug-of-the-shoulders “Well, what can you do? It’s their culture–we can’t just impose democracy on 'em–besides, these guys are important for stability/are a major market” attitude.
Strictly speaking, neither foreign policy realism nor pro-business conservatism comes right out and says “there are no objectively better moral values, just different culturally-mediated points of view”, but few leftists outside of the academy do that either. The effect, however, seems rather like that of cultural or moral relativism to me–for example, there is a huge gulf in values and beliefs between the United States and Saudi Arabia, but conservative business interests and military/diplomatic Cold Warriors alike have tended to view the Saudis as vital to our “national interests”, never mind how well their moral beliefs match up with Jeffersonian democracy, religious liberty, sexual equality, or other ideals we profess to cherish.
I would also point out that capitalism frequently comes in conflict with traditional culture and moral values; pure capitalism tends to be rather amoral and thus relatavist in the sense that whatever “consumers” want is what the market should be allowed to supply. If there’s a demand for pornography, then that’s what the market will supply; if there’s a demand for sermons, then that’s what the market will produce. (And the promotion of more laissez-faire attitudes towards free markets is of course strongly associated with the political right, at least in the 21st Century United States.) Thus, even in domestic policy there may be a certain tension between the desires of the social conservatives and the pro-business conservatives within the larger political right.
Pochacco & MEBuckner have it right. Relativism is very strong in certain quarters of the right. These relativist right-wingers (not all of the conservative movement by any stretch) are people who pooh-pooh “sentiment” & deplore any appeal to absolute moral goods.
When you hear someone talking about the importance of the American national interest & the unimportance of environmental protection, when you hear someone talking about how we need local control of schools, or state’s rights, you’re hearing someone choose local subjective goods over global objective goods. It gets to be very relativistic.
Personally I’m a pragmatist,I’m for whatever works to make life better for people generally rather then high moral stances that either dont work or actually make life worse for the people the moral stance is aimed at .
Also it is very common for people to play the “high moral ground card” to actually benefit themselves ,when demanding rights for their particular minority ,whether ethnic,religous ,sexual.cultural ,diet or gender based ,they are not asking for the rules to be changed to ensure a level playing field for all but are often trying to get preferential treatment for their own little group at the expense of the majority.
Am I the only one to have noticed how "minority "groupings have multiplied over the last thirty years ? People who when I was younger considered themselves "average"society members are now falling over themselves to tell everyone how different they are from societies norm and how they should get financial aid ,positive discrimination when applying for jobs and so on.
Communism is based on a totally selfless and ,lets face it ,morally “good” premise ,though its doctrines were strayed from on some issues it was practiced to the best of their ability by the then soviet union and china ,result a very shit life for the citizens ,crap consumer goods usually not available in any numbers ,poor housing a drab ,dreary life that most of us would prefer not to live .
Capitalism ,a totally selfish "me first "concept has given us all significantly better lives ,not to mention vast advances in science ,not for OUR benefit ,not even for the advancement of mankind but as fallout from some selfish bloke (usually)trying to make more money for himself.
Our cultural arrogance results in military adventures to “help other peoples learn and live by our democratic values”,very noble ,but when the Victorians did it (to teach them christian values ,to stop murdering people in Kali s worship,immolating widows on their husbands funeral pyres,to stop tribal chiefs selling their neighbouring tribesmen to American slavers ) it was and is colonialsm.
How have we helped the average Iraqi ?
We should stop trying to “help” other cultures willy nilly.
And finally a few words on Pacifists from an ex soldier who is not a pacifist .
I totally respect and admire genuine Pacifists ,you wont believe the complete admiration I honestly feel for these people(I swear this on everything I hold holy), I have read and seen documentaries about Pacifists .
The Pacifists in Nazi germany being given the choice of serving in the Wermacht or being immediatly executed (after seeing their friends suffer that fate minutes earlier )
British Pacifists volunteering for the bomb disposal service at a time when uxb s were prevalent and bomb disposal teams were suffering incredible casualties
And then I see the people who profess Pacifism at every opportunity ,some because they are cowards and do not want to be put into any sort of danger,but unbelievably more who do not want the inconvenience of getting up early in the morning ,having their leisure time restricted and having to do physical tasks that are hard work and not very pleasant.
And of course as a phony Pacifist you can lecture other people from the high ground and give yourself a little self esteem buzz.
I respect any Pacifist who risks their life ,the rest of you ?..have a guess…
I don’t believe in ‘morals’
- there are no absolute values
Ethics are another thing …