The little philosopher
Sep. 16th, 2011 10:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
athenaltenaIn my philosophy class the professor got started today on moral relativism, and essentially said that his job in the next week is to tear that philosophy down, since neither he nor the author he’s going to have us read like it.
I am absolutely giddy because of this, because I also really hate moral relativism, because it is, in essence, a cop-out. I get what it’s trying to do and the principles behind it, which I think have some worth, but whenever someone drags a moral relativist position into a conversation what it really does is shut down the conversation, because there’s nothing you can really say in response to “well it’s all relative.” And that was exactly what this professor said.
It also turns out that a lot of our class identify as moral relativists, and I have a theory that one reason it’s common among people of my age group is that we’re taught to respect other people and all that, but the thing about moral relativism is that the fact is that you need to be able to say that some things are objectively wrong and others are objectively right, otherwise you won’t get anywhere and there is no way to enforce moral standards or take action against those that willingly break them.
Now, what you shouldn’t do is demean someone or treat them unfairly, as the Unitarian Principles put it, you should acknowledge their inherent worth and dignity, but if they do something wrong, you absolutely should call them out on it. In fact, I’d argue you’re required to. With moral relativism you can’t do that, because it’s all relative. It’s true that if we go too far and constantly put down people who don’t conform to our standards we become oppressors, but it’s a double-edged sword that does have a legitimate purpose, we just have to be careful how it’s applied.
I prefer to think of “right” and “wrong” more in terms of positive and negative consequences, since they can be objectively measured and it takes subjective judgments out of the equation. I hate to drag Godwin’s Law into it, but my professor did so I’m citing him here, but Adolf Hitler killed millions of people, despite what certain denier nutjobs will try to claim. Objectively, that was an extremely negative act, one if not the worst one in history. But if you’re going the relativist position, you can’t make that judgment, because it’s all relative.
So yeah, I am absolutely giddy that we’re going to spend the next week tearing this one down.
I am absolutely giddy because of this, because I also really hate moral relativism, because it is, in essence, a cop-out. I get what it’s trying to do and the principles behind it, which I think have some worth, but whenever someone drags a moral relativist position into a conversation what it really does is shut down the conversation, because there’s nothing you can really say in response to “well it’s all relative.” And that was exactly what this professor said.
It also turns out that a lot of our class identify as moral relativists, and I have a theory that one reason it’s common among people of my age group is that we’re taught to respect other people and all that, but the thing about moral relativism is that the fact is that you need to be able to say that some things are objectively wrong and others are objectively right, otherwise you won’t get anywhere and there is no way to enforce moral standards or take action against those that willingly break them.
Now, what you shouldn’t do is demean someone or treat them unfairly, as the Unitarian Principles put it, you should acknowledge their inherent worth and dignity, but if they do something wrong, you absolutely should call them out on it. In fact, I’d argue you’re required to. With moral relativism you can’t do that, because it’s all relative. It’s true that if we go too far and constantly put down people who don’t conform to our standards we become oppressors, but it’s a double-edged sword that does have a legitimate purpose, we just have to be careful how it’s applied.
I prefer to think of “right” and “wrong” more in terms of positive and negative consequences, since they can be objectively measured and it takes subjective judgments out of the equation. I hate to drag Godwin’s Law into it, but my professor did so I’m citing him here, but Adolf Hitler killed millions of people, despite what certain denier nutjobs will try to claim. Objectively, that was an extremely negative act, one if not the worst one in history. But if you’re going the relativist position, you can’t make that judgment, because it’s all relative.
So yeah, I am absolutely giddy that we’re going to spend the next week tearing this one down.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-09-18 06:59 am (UTC)The thing about moral absolutism is that everyone is convinced that god has the same prejudices, dislikes and squicks that they do. When pressed, they can't name even one "moral absolute" that was absolute in all times and all cultures. If people feel a pressing need to force their moral standards on others, at least they should have the guts to admit "we dislike you doing that strongly enough that we are willing to use violence to stop you" rather than pretend that that's not what they are doing.
I don't quite see the benefit of the distinction you try to make between "objective" wrongs and other wrongs. Doesn't everyone believe that their own perception is objective? How often does someone call their own convictions"subjective" - as opposed to those of others? And isn't a "subjective" wrong still wrong for the one who feels it so? Is an "objective" wrong still wrong for one who disagrees with it?
Even the bible doesn't go as far as to posit absolute wrongs; it only calls things abominable "in the eyes of the lord"; Jehova's personal squicks. There's no consensus on how to determine an "objective" wrong; just try to establish an argument that's acceptable to everyone on earth on whether or not polycotton fabric is an abomination. Consequentialism too is based on a subjective evaluation of which consequences are "positive".
Hitler did plan the murder of millions, but it would never have happened if a lot of people hadn't agreed with him that it was a good idea. Hitler didn't personally kill those millions of people; millions of people killed millions of other people, and a lot of them believed they had good reasons at the time. Some believe even today that they were right to firebomb Dresden (killing 500.000 civilians) or to nuke Hiroshima (killing 250.000 civilians) or Nagasaki (killing 70.000 civilians).
I can say that things are wrong in my personal judgment, but just because I feel strongly about it doesn't make it absolute. It would be nice if the universe would absolutely vindicate my personal morals, but it's a stretch to posit that absolute morality must exist just because absolute morals that agreed with me would be a nice justification for trying to impose my values on others...
no subject
Date: 2011-09-18 03:32 pm (UTC)Also keep in mind I'm a sociology major, so I know damn well that there's no such thing as a moral absolute, just as there is no such thing as a universal norm. But just because it's not universal doesn't mean that it has no meaning or power, and my problem with relativism is that it essentially takes the power away from those. Another part of sociological theory is that even though norms do not exist per se they do have power and they do have effects.
I'm not an absolutist either, far from it, but I hate that relativism gets used to dismiss other people's opinions as "well that's just your opinion" since that does indeed shut the conversation down. Where do you go from there?
It's not the theory I have a problem with so much as how it gets applied.
I also have issues with the fact that relativism itself is self-contradictory. To quote an article I read:
Q: What is the meaning of Relativism?
A: That all Truth is relative.
As soon as you make this assertion, it either includes itself or excludes itself.
If it includes itself, then the statement is not always true either. The statement itself is relative. If it excludes itself, that implies that this statement is an absolute, while denying absolute statements actually exist.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-18 06:04 pm (UTC)A: That all Truth is relative.
I think it's a bit unfair to state relativism in a deliberately self-contradictory way. No relativist would express the relativist position in terms of "Truth". "Truths" are propositions, as such they make sense in a context that asserts them. The truths of Euclidean geometry are not true in non-Euclidean space. Relativism is a position about the nature of morality, and this strawman argument tries to pretend that it denies the possibility of a true proposition.
In all it's a bit disingenuous, like people who would accuse you of being intolerant of their intolerance...