Conservatives and fundamentalists rail against moral relativism as a recent development pushed by secular humanists, but the United States is founded on moral relativism.
The argument goes like this:
A. Most moral codes, and particularly those with a large number of adherents, are based on religion. Most of the framers’ moral codes were based on religion.
B. The framers (of the Constitution) recognized no primacy among religions.
Therefore
C. The framers made moral relativism a pillar of the constitution in that they recognized no particular moral code as supreme.
Interesting, but flawed. The framers basic outlook of a society free of government coercion in the realms of religion, speech, etc. is itself a moral code. They have obviously enshrined these rights in the Constitution, meaning that they accepted a particular moral code as supreme.
In relation to the “conservatives and fundamentalists” the dismissal of religion as a means for developing a moral code is relevant and pertinent to their perception of moral relativism. If moral mandates aren’t passed down from on high (if there is no religious primacy), why should we consider the constitutional authors’ morality any more important than anyone else’s?
I’m not sure how the constitution is seen as moral code rather than a code of law, though. Something a little more explicit is needed.
Azael and John Mace, when you’re done congratulating yourselves on detecting the bad grammar in the OP do you think you might like to add to the discussion or do you feel comfortable in your inherent superiority and feel that there is nothing for you to see here?
My position on moral relativism is more or less this. That society needs to be cohesive, thus we adopt certain moral codes, not because they are right, but because they are effective. I think that capitalism and democracy are the most EFFECTIVE forms of government thus far, therefore I think that their moral codes are the ones which I should follow. I believe that free speech is one of the highest ethics to attain, not because of any moral authority, but because a good dialogue creates progress. Simple concept really.
I think that the OP may be slightly flawed in his deduction but I do think that he’s onto something.
I saw them congratulating themselves (rightfully so, IMO) on detecting bad logic in the OP, not bad grammar. It’s bloody difficult to construct a universal deduction out of a “most” quantifier, and that’s really the only quantifer that the OP can apply to morality in A without a helluva lot more explication (and, IMO, “most” is the only quantifier that can be applied to A).
You can be irreligious and still not be a moral relativist. I can, for instance, be an athiest Kantian.
I don’t think there is really such a thing as moral relativism in democracies, though. Democracies these days tend to believe in rule of law. In a more relevant sense, the principle of rule of law is tightly wound into the US Constitution. The rule of law is an inherently anti-relativist thing. For instance, find me a democrat (notice the small d) who would consider rape to be anything but immoral under all circumstances. Once you consider there to be actions that are always unjustifiable, then you are not a moral relativist.
But the US, as a democracy, is still more morally relativist than a lot of countries, e.g. Saudi Arabia. This is a result of liberalism: liberalism says there is a sphere in which official society makes no judgements, and thus in which ethics is irrelevant to the government. In Saudi Arabia, this sphere is much smaller.
I agree with Ulterior. There are varying degrees of relativism/objectivism, and the existence of the Constitution (esp. the Bill of Rights) pretty much precludes the US from being completely relativist.
I agree that the needs of society (in functioning democracies, at least) and in general, tend to make the legal and ethical codes we live by. Thus we have divorce legal in all states, though AFAIK most religions, particularly those dominant in the US, tend to frown on this practice.
I would go further than saying that the effective moral codes are, by definition, right in their time and place. In our moral culture, outlawing divorce would be a moral disaster-- it would require the unhappiness of a great many people. In other times and places, such as in cases where single parents could not both support and care for children, allowing more divorces would have been wrong. But then I’m a moral relativist.
It’s fortunate the framers didn’t decide to enshrine the common elements of their varied moral systems.
But how is a moral code not based in religion not subject to the moral relativism that the “conservatives and fundamentalists” are so worried about?
I think Azael has misconstrued nogginhead’s statement. There is an implicit dichotomy that was ignored. Let me try.
There are only two A’s: A1 (religious based morals) and A2(moral relativism).
A1<>A2.
B(religion) is necessary for A1.
The government does not promote or engage in B.
Therefore the government must not have A1 and if it has an A at all it must have A2 because A1<>A2.
Depends on the moral code, but (to use Ulterior’s example) Kantian ethics are just as (if not more) stringent than religious ethics, “stringent” meaning in this case “less susceptible to individual interpretation.” (I have also encountered conservatives/fundamentalists who use Kant (at least in part) to justify their beliefs, e.g. “If everybody were a homosexual then the human race would die out, therefore homosexuality fails Kant’s test of universalizability and thus is immoral. Oh yeah, and I don’t like homosexuality, because I think that it’s gross, but seriously, I’m just being a good Kantian by condemning homosexuality, so stop calling me a fundamentalist!”)
Hmm, perhaps nogginhead had assumed this dichotomy, but in this case he needs to make some effort towards establishing the dichotomy – he’ll have to show, f’rinstance, that Kant or Mill or Locke or whoever (pick your poison) advocate (pure) relativism.
I acknowledge that the deductive logic in my statement was incorrect. I also think that “most” in A is the most that can be said and is also accurate in terms of endorsement.
I’d appreciate an example of how the logic falls down in this case, explained by Azael or John Mace.
On the other hand, I think the context of the writing of the constitution adds strength to the notion and could be used to make the logic tight. (Or tighter. I’m not a philosopher, which is why I brought the idea to this forum to begin with.)
So, let me restate in a way that may hold more water:
A. Premise, based on history: Some (not none) of the framers’ moral codes were based on religion, and these codes differed in meaningful ways.
B. They chose not to enforce any one of these codes or religions in the constitution.
Therefore,
C. They implicitly acknowledged that all were acceptable, which is equivalent to moral relativism, however incomplete.
This was also perhaps shoddy reasoning on my part. I made the assumption that it could have been a document establishing a more explicit moral code. That fact that it did not is itself a moral statement.
nogginhead: Alright, I think I get what you’re saying, and yes, I agree that the United States is founded “partly” (“to a considerable extent”) on moral relativism. (I’d thought that perhaps you meant that the United States is founded on pure moral relativism, an assertion to which I disagree.)