Taking a stand on moral relativism

Great Debates
41

To my mind, discussions of philosophical or moral systems tend to very easily get into general hand-waving territory unless they are very closely linked to real-world applications. And the subject of moral relativism DEFINITELY has strong links to what’s happening in the world today.

Frex, one of the reasons the war in Afghanistan went down so smoothly with the American populace was that the Taliban treated women so badly. A proper moral relativism would have had us asking if we were not judging the men and women by our own standards and whether such treatment actually was reasonable for them. Never happened.

Saudi Arabia, OTOH, is getting a pass for very nearly Taliban-esque treatment of women – they cannot drive vehicles, they cannot go around in public without a male relative accompanying them, they have to wear veils in public, and if they get out of line one of the religious thought police can beat them, on the spot.

Why is our morality outraged by the activities of the Taliban but not by the Saudis?

Feminists generally have had the same problem with the ancient custom of cliterodectomy as practiced among some North African tribes. American feminists were outraged and tried to have the practice stopped. But some North American feminists and a lot of Third World feminists said, “Hold on, you’re judging this practice strictly in terms of your own culture. In terms of THEIR culture it’s not so bad as you think.”

This, I think, is where a lot of people, including me, jumped ship on moral relativism. If it means being tolerant of cultures where women are expected to wear a veil, that’s one thing, but fuck moral relativism if it means putting up with shit like cliterodectomies.

I’m not sure about the different reaction to the treatment of women in Afghanistan vs. Taliban. I think there’s a large political element in that equation that may obscure the clear logic of the case. In short, if it weren’t so important to Bush that we be buddies with the Saudis, I bet we’d hear a lot more about what a bunch of sexist pigs they are. And they are.

I understand that it’s good to develop a strong intellectual framework for a set of moral beliefs so that they are consistently applied and clearly understood, but without referencing strong moral issues in the present they can easily become passe.

42

Right, Evil Captor, I agree with your examples. So the next question is: what differentiates those different moral norms that we find unacceptable from those norms that we don’t share but can leave alone?

The mere fact that you agree that there are norms that we don’t share but don’t find obliged to eradicate shows that you are not a moral absolutist in the strong sense of the word. The mere fact that I agree that there are norms that are unacceptable shows that I am not a moral relativist in the radical sense of the word. So we meet somewhere in the middle. The acceptance that there is a middle ground is already a great step, which somehow lots of people seem to find hard to digest.

43

Not quite… The higher standard doesn’t have to be a moral one. It could be a logical one.

Thus, a moral standard could “break down” if it becomes non-transitive, self-contradictory, or dependent on irrelevancy. These are not moral failures, but, rather, logical ones.

Otherwise, by a parodical extension of your reasoning, an automobile can never “break down,” as it at all times obeys all the laws of physics…

Trinopus

44

If the moral system contradicts logic, it’s not a workable one in the first place.

45

To add to what godzillatemple said, and to more or less reiterate what epolo said, moral relativism is not a moral system, but does require that we recognize that if we are judging other moral systems, we must do so from a moral system.

Moral absolutes may indeed exist; but, such moral absolutes may not form a comprehensive enough framework to encompass all human interaction.

It doesn’t require tolerance of any particular view at all, actually. You are welcome to hate female mutilation as much as you want.

Sounds good. Practical morality would require something very much like that, I think, in all forms. Sort of a 3-valued logic (by analogy).

46

This thread is interesting because I just got out of my Elements of Moral Philosophy class - and my teacher was just showing us how to debunk relativists. You made a really long argument, but really, can you include the short version?

I dont think you can include a short version that stands up on its own. Its easy enough to discredit.

Common sense will tell you that a theory endorsing whatever views a society (culture) happens to have - is wrong.

47

That might be true, if that were, in fact, what anybody here is endorsing.

As I’ve said before, moral relativism does not necessarily claim that all moral codes are equally valid. Instead, it acknowledges that morality cannot exist in a vacuum and must by necessity be shaped by the particular needs and circumstances of the culture that developed that moral code. There can still be general principles, but they must have some degree of flexibility to them.

Trying to apply “absolute principles” to situations where those principles cause more harm than good is just as bad as saying that all moral codes are equally valid. Especially when those “absolute principles” are themselves the result of one particular culture’s needs and circumstances.

Barry

48

But you might not become aware of that until a condition arises that reveals the inadequacy.

Robert Heinlein once noted that logic can’t tell you anything you didn’t already know. i.e., all possible conclusions are inherent in the premises.

However, there’s an awful lot we don’t know that we don’t know…

That’s what I meant by a moral system “breaking down.”

(Who would have guessed that the divorced gay Bishop would insist on kosher cuisine?)

Trinopus

P.S. I’m basing some of my argument on a comparison to the breakdown of voting systems under certain conditions, as shown by Arrow’s Theorem.

49

Well, if you are condemning moral relativism based on dollars, then I’m with you. I think most of us agree that that is an invalid means by which to judge morality.

It’s interesting to consider the veil (and let’t ignore the beating up part for now - I think we can make a good case for that being immoral.) I’m sure you’d agree that wearing a veil itself is not a moral issue, it is the coercion women in Saudi Arabia, for instance, feel about wearing the veil. Reasonable so far.

The moral justification given has usually something to do with protecting the veiled woman from leering men. We in the West respond by saying that we’ve managed to see women’s unveiled faces without leering, so the woman is losing freedom because of the weakness of men, and we might be able to make a case for that not being a good reason to limit freedom.

But before we got too smug, let’s consider Western laws against toplessness for women. (You can use men also, if you wish.) What’s the justification? Biblical? Cultural? That we can’t trust ourselves? That no moral woman would want to run around topless? I think you’d find very parallel arguments. Now, I’m not arguing anything - just giving an example of how moral absolutism cause all sorts of problems.

I think your cliterectomy example might have a different outcome, because this is usually an irreversible, possibly painful, possibly harmful thing done to women without informed consent. Veils are different - you can take them off and put them on.

Thanks for the interesting example. Thoughts?

50

To re-reiterate for those who still seem to be thinking “acknowledgement = endorsement”, I can acknowledge another person’s point of view without endorsing or believing in it. I can acknowledge that NAMBLA has its own rationalizations and beliefs, but that does not preclude me from also thinking those rationalizations to be idiotic. It does require that I at least attempt to know them.

The major difference between moral absolutism and moral relativism is moral absolutism says “My system is always right” whereas moral relativism says “sometimes its right, and sometimes its wrong.”

Lets use a whacked-out example here. I think eating human babies is a bad thing. I’m pretty certain of that fact. Now lets say I find a civilization in the back of beyond barely edging out an existence as hunter-gatherers. This society has no one too old to hunt anymore, because conditions are too rough for very many to live over 35 at best. Sometimes the herds they hunt fail change migratory patterns and they can no longer feed mouths which are not benefiting the tribe in some immediate way. Regardless of whether or not the tribespeople kill each baby themselves, those babies will end up dead. Is, then, eating those babies such a moral outrage in the situation? It would save lives, after all.

51

Looks like there are quite a few varieties of Moral Relativism around

  1. Moral relativism as someone just described where the main ‘rule’ is that no moral precept is absolute.

  2. Moral relativism as all moral codes being equal

  3. Moral relativism as a “wrapper” for moral systems like erislover has explained, that recognises that morals that other people hold, are not created in a vacuum and we should view morals in conjunction with the culture/society/religion that they spawned from.epolo summed it up best I think.

Obviously these are highly simplified, but it seems to be about right.

52

Your basically saying that general principles do exist, and that relativism is the flexibility of those principles found from culture to culture.

So what are these general principles? And what defines them? Most of all, what makes them morally right?

You are suggesting that a list of all things right and wrong exists.

53

What godzilla is ( I think) saying would be that you are more likely to get morals to apply farther by making them loose. The Golden Rule is a prime example, and indeed shows up in multiple cultures. “Do unto others as you would have done unto you”. This leaves a wide range of possible applications open, making it much more flexible to the needs of each culture. Still probably gonna be exceptions, though.

54

I’m not a moral absolutist as you say, but I am also far from a moral relativist. I think there are a few moral principles that are embraced by ALMOST all cultures and which could and should readily be adopted by the majority of cultures and then if necessary ENFORCED on the recalcitrants.

Most cultures clearly do not approve of rape, murder, armed robbery and assault. Some have exceptions for these rules – state-sanctioned murder being one of the more commonplace ones – but I think a sort of Geneva Convention for the basics would be a good start.

Then we can go to work on things like cliterodectomies, state-sanctioned murder and sexist piggery.

I think in fact something like this has been evolving over time. Modern mass media is creating a super culture which transcends local cultures. This is what we are going to have to have if we want to have a peaceful, civilized world. It will take a long time and be very hard and there will be many false steps and some backsliding, but it will be worth it.

55

Well, that’s where philosophy and logic come into play. I don’t claim to know all the answers, but if you read my original post in this thread you’ll see where I posited one possible candidate for a general moral principle.

The problem with “absolute morality” is that nobody can agree what the “absolute moral truths” are in the first place. Even when somebody appeals to the “word of God” to define absolute moral principles, they have to themselves choose among the many contradictory interpretations of that word (Is it the Old Testament? The New Testament? The Qur’an? The Mahabarata?), as well as discard those portions that no longer jibe with modern sensibilities. Which is to say that even “absolute” moral principles are relative, based on who chooses which principles are “absolute” in the first place.

Add to that the fact that “absolute” moral principles are, by definition, inflexible, and you are looking at a recipe for disaster.

Instead of looking to “God” to provide a list of moral absolutes, a better way is to use reason and logic to think of principles that provide for the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. And then, since these principles are not “absolute,” realize that exceptions may need to be made depending on specific circumstances.

Regards,

Barry

56

That is your view of moral relativism, but what I am telling you is that the people who were basically supporting cliterodectomies were saying that we were in fact required to tolerate them by THEIR version of moral relativism.

My personal opinion is that whenever you start trying to apply logical or ideological structures to the real world, it never works unless you are willing to be flexible in how you do it. We don’t really know enough about how human culture functions to work with it with any degree of precision … yet.

57

Personally, I think that a definitive set of moral principles exist.

Where? In time. Throughout time our definitions of morality have consistently become more and more precise - especially as each culture and society bridges oceans with communication and cultural lines start dissapearing.

From speculation, I think it is safe to say that 30-50 years from now we will have a global agreement of what morality is. If this doesnt seem feasible - look at what the US just did to Saddams view of morality =)

58

All you’re saying is that the different cultures are blending. We’ve been saying throughout the thread that the culture provides the context for morality. As we become more global, those nations that were once isolated from eachother are exchanging more and more concepts and ideas. At some point in the future they will probably all look very much alike, including their ethics system. Still doesn’t mean they’re definitively true. Just like we do today, it will still be reformed internally as new ideas and situations arise.

59

No, actually my point was just that the political considerations involved in our relationship with Saudi Arabia obscures any chance for an objective look at the cultural practices there vis a vis Afghanistan. I don’t think it’s moral relativism, it’s pure realpolitik, which I guess is a form of moral relativism.

It’s interesting to consider the veil (and let’t ignore the beating up part for now - I think we can make a good case for that being immoral.) I’m sure you’d agree that wearing a veil itself is not a moral issue, it is the coercion women in Saudi Arabia, for instance, feel about wearing the veil. Reasonable so far.

I think the answer to things like the veil and most of the less oppressive forms of sexism has to be education. It’s mostly pure ignorance and an inability to imagine any more equitable system working that makes the men and women there accept such obviously stupid and unfair practices.

BTW, there was a thread on SDMB about conditions in Saudi Arabia, participated in by people stationed there, which is where I got my info on practices there. (The bit about women being beaten in public for going about unescorted, which I didn’t previously know about, came from an American woman in Saudi who got hit by one of their enforcers who then turned on him and told him that if he hit her again he’d find the stick he hit her in a VERY painful place. The enforcer ran off to get the Saudi cops, presumably for not letting him beat her.)

Anyway, they said the pretext for the veil and for making women go about with a male escort at all times was to prevent rape. The idea being that if a Saudi woman permitted a Saudi man to see any portion of her body other than her eyes, it would be her fault if he raped her.

This is obvious bullshit AFAIC, but once again it’s the sort of bullshit that’s best addressed by education and cultural change, not armed conflict.

60

I think Evil Captor’s example of Saudi Arabia, and alteregos’s “look at what the US just did to Saddams view of morality”, do more to support erl’s stand than to shake it.

Consider that those posts arise from, or touch on, a conflict between two or more moral systems and involve a judgement being made on one or more of those systems from the implied assumption that the moral system from which the judgement is made is more valid than the one on which that judgement is being passed.

IMHO, once we acknowledge that a moral system other than our own exists – no matter what views we hold on any or all of its parts – we have moved into moral relativism.

This, I think, is self-contradictory.

A global agreement on what morality is would not necessarily mean that that morality is an absolute morality. It would simply mean that the conditions and events which led to it made it seem a reasonable outcome. Alter the conditions and events slightly and you may have a different outcome (of course, this reflects my own bias towards contingency – what can I say? I love the flux appeal).

Does this mean we then might have a different absolute morality? If there is more than one absolute morality, which one is absolutest? (Not to be confused with absolutist.:smiley: )