esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (04/18/85)
Granny and I have had it up to here with the recent moral relativism debate. We've decided that it's time to put our feet down and dig our heels in. "We may not still have evolution in the public schools, but by Ubizmo, we still have the distinction between what people think and what is so!" (--Granny) Muffy (???@???) writes: > Actually, if Hitler had won, he would indeed have been correct. Not from > *my* point of view, of course, but I would be dead. In fact, as I recall, > he wanted to kill everyone who didn't believe as he did, so the only people > left alive would be those that agreed with him, or said they did. Regard- > less of what you may believe, "right" and "wrong" are societally defined, > they are *not* inborn. Thus, if everyone in my society thinks as I do, > then I am right. Gary Samuelson (ittvax!bunker!garys) writes: > And if moral relativism, consistently followed, would consider Nazism > to be moral, if only Hitler had won the war, then I submit that > moral relativsim is a dangerous philosophy. Padraig Houlahan (padraig@utastro.UUCP) writes: > [...] Philosophies based on "absolutes" can also be dangerous > e.g. The history of europe is practically a history of religous wars; > Recall the stranglehold that religion had on learning because it > accepted Aristotle as being absolutely correct. Note also that > absolute morality frequently goes hand in hand with absolute > righteousness, and certainty, giving rise to extreme fanaticism as is > evident in communistic, and islamic behaviour. Enough of such nonsense. A lot of religious moralities are hardly any different from relativist moralities: whereas Muffy says "whatever society says, is right", the fundamentalist says "whatever Allah says, is right". Society, Allah -- what's the difference. They both make the same mistake: "they both confuse believing something with it's being true, and {society|Allah}'s power to enforce its laws with the correctness of the laws" (--Granny). Morality, we say, is a matter of the reasons for and against an action. Those, in turn, are determined by the benefits and harms it causes. Benefits and harms, in turn, can be learned of through experience and reason. We must recognize, before harming anyone, that whatever worth and reality one's own well-being has, the well-being of others has exactly the same worth and reality and that whatever is right for one to do to them is, other things being equal, also right for them to do to oneself. Granny and I find no compelling reasons for regarding moral judgements as altogether different from ordinary factual judgements. Few people would look at the variety of views on a factual subject like evolution and conclude that whether you evolved or were created is relative to your society or culture or subculture! But for morality, the story changes, why? Why not say, 'here are more examples of some people being right and others mistaken' -- or, more realistically, everybody being mistaken? We would like to close by noting that there is a certain perverse logic to Muffy's description of Hitler's idea. If society is the ultimate arbiter of right, the idea of getting rid of everyone who disagrees with you (and thus being right) is likely to seem attractive. Perhaps it was that kind of thinking that inspired this quote: "If relativism signifies the contempt for fixed categories ... then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity. ... From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable."* Benito Mussolini, you said it! [ * Benito Mussolini, _Diuturna_, pp. 374-77. Qouted from Helmut Kuhn, _Freedom Forgotten and Remembered_, Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1943, pp. 17-18. ] -- The worth of an idea is inversely proportional to its popularity. Paul V. Torek, wucs!wucec2!pvt1047
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (04/25/85)
In article <901@wucs.UUCP> pvt1047@wucec2.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) writes: >Enough of such nonsense. A lot of religious moralities are hardly any >different from relativist moralities: whereas Muffy says "whatever >society says, is right", the fundamentalist says "whatever Allah says, >is right". Society, Allah -- what's the difference. They both make >the same mistake: "they both confuse believing something with it's >being true, and {society|Allah}'s power to enforce its laws with the >correctness of the laws" (--Granny). On the point that religious moralities are hardly different than relativist moralities: Exactly. I would say that religious moralities *are* relativist moralities parading in absolutist drag. On the second point, I would say it is not possible to determine the "correctness" of a law (or norm) in any objective sense. One must return to one's culture to form any evaluation. >Morality, we say, is a matter of the reasons for and against an action. >Those, in turn, are determined by the benefits and harms it causes. >Benefits and harms, in turn, can be learned of through experience and >reason. We must recognize, before harming anyone, that whatever worth >and reality one's own well-being has, the well-being of others has >exactly the same worth and reality and that whatever is right for >one to do to them is, other things being equal, also right for them to >do to oneself. Benefits and harms are not absolutes. In fact, we seldom get agreement as to what is beneficial and what is harmful outside the context of the social universe in which the action takes place. What evidence do you have in any objective way that your recasting of the Golden Rule is in any sense a universal moral principle? Recalling the Midianites, even G-d seems to overlook it when convenient. (Warning: anyone who points out that a Deity can do anything it wants because its ways are unknowable to man has proven my point -- judgement of an action as moral or immoral depends on who is acting and by whom they are being judged.) As an aside, how does the golden rule apply to a Kamakazee pilot or the driver of a truck bomb? It seems to me that the golden rule is being strictly observed here, but that few (in western countries) would consider such actions to be "moral." >Granny and I find no compelling reasons for regarding moral judgements >as altogether different from ordinary factual judgements. Few people >would look at the variety of views on a factual subject like evolution >and conclude that whether you evolved or were created is relative to >your society or culture or subculture! But for morality, the story >changes, why? Why not say, 'here are more examples of some people being >right and others mistaken' -- or, more realistically, everybody being >mistaken? You must have a better line on omniscience than I do. I often can't tell whether an action is moral or immoral *within* the context of my culture without considerable thought. I can't imagine making sweeping judgements like that. Do you claim to be a Deity? :-) >We would like to close by noting that there is a certain perverse logic >to Muffy's description of Hitler's idea. If society is the ultimate >arbiter of right, the idea of getting rid of everyone who disagrees >with you (and thus being right) is likely to seem attractive. Perhaps >it was that kind of thinking that inspired this quote: > > "If relativism signifies the contempt for fixed > categories ... then there is nothing more relativistic > than Fascist attitudes and activity. ... From the fact > that all ideologies are of equal value, that all > ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist > infers that everybody has the right to create for > himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it > with all the energy of which he is capable."* > >Benito Mussolini, you said it! > [ * Benito Mussolini, _Diuturna_, pp. 374-77. Qouted from Helmut >Kuhn, _Freedom Forgotten and Remembered_, Chapel Hill, N.C.: University >of North Carolina Press, 1943, pp. 17-18. ] This is an excellent statement of the moral absolutist straw man. Where it breaks down is that these "ideologies" are created an exist within a larger cultural context which circumscribes their characteristics. It is interesting to speculate as to whether Hitler's Germany would have been possible had there not been a complete social and economic breakdown in Germany after W.W. I. It seems to me that the anomic weakness of that post- war culture provided fertile soil for that horror to grow. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch