Monday, December 05, 2011

In Defense of Moral Relativism


Moral relativism is a good thing. What's more, we already accept relativism as part of our ethical framework. How, for instance, does the so-called Golden Rule work without relativism? How can we hope to understand how to behave towards others without considering their circumstances and experiences?

Moral relativism is not a problem. The problem is what to do with it. To illustrate, take the following account:
I was teaching my senior Philosophy class. We had just finished a unit on Metaphysics and were about to get into Ethics, the philosophy of how we make moral judgments. The school had also just had several social-justice-type assemblies—multiculturalism, women’s rights, anti-violence and gay acceptance. So there was no shortage of reference points from which to begin.

I decided to open by simply displaying, without comment, the photo of Bibi Aisha. Aisha was the Afghani teenager who was forced into an abusive marriage with a Taliban fighter, who abused her and kept her with his animals. When she attempted to flee, her family caught her, hacked off her nose and ears, and left her for dead in the mountains. After crawling to her grandfather’s house, she was saved by a nearby American hospital. I felt quite sure that my students, seeing the suffering of this poor girl of their own age, would have a clear ethical reaction, from which we could build toward more difficult cases.

The picture is horrific. Aisha’s beautiful eyes stare hauntingly back at you above the mangled hole that was once her nose. Some of my students could not even raise their eyes to look at it. I could see that many were experiencing deep emotions.

But I was not prepared for their reaction.

I had expected strong aversion; but that’s not what I got. Instead, they became confused. They seemed not to know what to think. They spoke timorously, afraid to make any moral judgment at all. They were unwilling to criticize any situation originating in a different culture.

They said, “Well, we might not like it, but maybe over there it’s okay.” One student said, “I don’t feel anything at all; I see lots of this kind of stuff.”

Another said (with no consciousness of self-contradiction), “It’s just wrong to judge other cultures.”
Anderson, the teacher, is correct to identify the real problem: the refusal to make moral judgments. Moral relativism is one thing; moral judgments are another. Moral relativism does not preclude making moral judgments and never has.

Yes, another culture might consider that its citizens have made a morally good action in mutilating Aisha. We have every right to challenge the moral justification of the action, even though we are not of that culture. They consider the action right. We consider the action wrong. We argue about it. We try to get to the heart of the matter and to a workable agreement about morally justified behavior.

Nothing about moral relativism prevents us from outrage over heinous acts or from punishing wrongdoing. All that relativism actually requires of us is an acknowledgment that our own moral frame of reference is not the only valid one for understanding specific acts. The alternative is to declare in all arrogance that we alone possess the One True WayTM of all morality, and everyone else can go fuck themselves. Of course, this has been tried before--and it has failed miserably. Just see how the ironically named Catholic Church has done in imposing their One True WayTM.

Those who wish to use Anderson's story to critique of materialism or postmodernism are being obtuse; they are barking up not the wrong tree but the stupid tree. Such people include the insidious "Best Schools" folks, who post Anderson's account as part of their drive to bring back straight, white, and Christian as the ideal in education and society.

But Anderson's story actually shows the power of moral relativism to establish judgment. With reasoned and reasonable judgment--the kind that only moral relativism allows--we may make responsible, nuanced appeals to those who possess moral frameworks which differ sharply from our own.

The argument in favor of moral relativism, therefore, boils down to this:
  • We are all already relativists in most every aspect of our daily lives.
  • Relativism is descriptive, not prescriptive; it is not itself a moral system but a condition of moral agents (plural) acting in the world.
  • Relativism does not entail moral equality between either acts or viewpoints.
  • Moral relativism does not preclude making, legislating, or enforcing moral behavior.
  • Relativism enables a necessary flexibility in assessing and evaluating moral acts, and improving moral law.

If one is not a relativist, how does one condemn the “mutilation”? After all, weren't the perpetrators enforcing divinely-sanctioned law? Yes, they were indeed acting according to an “objective” moral standard, as surely as the nation of Israel was in the slaughter of Deuteronomy 20:10-20. If one’s theory is that morality is divinely given, then one has nothing to say about either of the two cases above, except perhaps “hallelujah.”

One can be a relativist and then defend both cases. One can be a relativist and condemn both cases. But one cannot not be a relativist. The world is basically divided between people who accept this fact, and those who refuse to accept it.

26 comments:

  1. "All that relativism actually requires of us is an acknowledgment that our own moral frame of reference is not the only valid one for understanding specific acts."

    So we have to acknowledge that the Taliban frame of reference is also valid to undertand Bibi Aisha mutilation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chesterton,

    We have to acknowledge that it's a frame of reference being used to justify the mutilation.

    We can acknowledge this without in any way supporting or endorsing what was done.

    In fact, we vigorously oppose the mutilation and argue that it is morally reprehensible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If: "We have to acknowledge that it's a frame of reference being used to justify the mutilation."


    Why: "we vigorously oppose the mutilation and argue that it is morally reprehensible."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Chesterton,

    Seriously? You think one negates the other or lessens its force? Seriously?

    Or are you just being obtuse for sake of argument?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Off course I´m serious. Can you explain how can you take both together?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Chesterton,

    I like Woody Allen movies, especially from the 70s and early 80s. My wife can't stand these films. Yet she understands that I find them enjoyable.

    That's how you can "take both together." Acknowledging that someone else thinks he is justified simply does not equate to your endorsing what they've done or their reasons for doing it.

    Another example. I think Christianity is unsupportable and that the Gospels, especially John, are horrible and boring texts. You may disagree. I can acknowledge that you think Christianity is wonderful while at the same time maintaining that it's a terrible system of beliefs and rituals.

    ReplyDelete
  7. But we are not talking about taste here. In your second sentence you said:

    "we ..... argue that it is morally reprehensible."

    Why it ir morally reprehensible the lapidation made by a Taliban?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Chesterton,

    So, I'll tell you why it's morally reprehensible and then you'll ask me why my view of reprehensibility should trump the Taliban's. Is that the game you want to play?

    Seriously, that's already answered. What else do you have?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "So, I'll tell you why it's morally reprehensible"

    Sorry, you give you give me an example about the good or bad are Woddy Allen movies or Saint John gospel. That is the answer to why?


    Ok, so we have a Taliban that says it is justice to lapidate Bibi Aisha and we have an ex-jewish american that says it is morally reprensible lapidat Bibi Aisha.

    Then we have the following options:

    a) Taliban and ex-jewish american are both morally equivalent and nobody has the right to intervention, talibans will go on with his lapidations and ex-jewish americans will remain outraged but not looking for talibans punishment.

    b) ex-jewish americans are morally superiors to talibans, talibans should stop to lapidate or some punishment should be taken with them.

    Do you agree with b?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think the mutilation was morally reprehensible and that the Afghani government should be pressured to bring the perpetrators to justice.

    Your calls of moral superiority are childish.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "I THINK the mutilation was morally reprehensible and that the Afghani government should be pressured to bring the perpetrators to justice. "

    "Your calls of moral superiority are childish."

    You call me chidish, but all your argument is about what "you think" meaning what you think is superior to what think the taliban. You are justifyng racism.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I did not call you childish. I said "Your calls of moral superiority are childish."

    I am not justifying racism and your statement is completely unwarranted. I'm done with you, since you seem not even to be trying to represent the actual position I have stated.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I found the exchange between the two of you rather interesting because it seems to me that both of you started out honestly trying to have a reasonable discussion about a point of clarification and yet neither of you were ever able to understand the other.

    I don't think you, Larry, ever understood the question Chesterton was asking, and I think you Chesterton were assuming all along that Larry was claiming more than he was. (But of course I could be wrong on both accounts).

    My take is this. Larry is saying nothing more than that his (personal, internal) system of morality tells him that the Afghani government was morally wrong while at the same time acknowledging the fact that the Afghani government's system of morality tells them that their actions were morally right.

    But Chesterton is asking *how* Larry can state that his morals are superior to the Afghani government's morals. And the answer is that Larry is not claiming that at all. In fact, Larry states very clearly that: "moral relativism does not allow one to 'claim the moral high ground.'" So there's nothing to argue about here. However, to be fair, I do think that Chesterton was genuinely trying to understand your position Larry.

    Now, of course, it will be ironic if I have misunderstood both of you, but that is the risk I take. :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ri,

    Very diplomatic. You get my argument mostly right. I believe I distinguished between those who attacked Bibi Aisha and the Afghani government, but I think an appropriate course of action is for people to call on that government to punish the attackers.

    I'll also beg to differ: I understood perfectly well what Chesterton's question was and tried to answer it as directly as possible. I also disagree that Chesterton was genuinely trying to understand my argument.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ri said...
    "Larry is not claiming that at all. In fact, Larry states very clearly that: "moral relativism does not allow one to 'claim the moral high ground.'" "

    Larry Tanner said...
    " I think an appropriate course of action is for people to call on that government to punish the attackers."

    May be I am a bit influenced by scholastic, but I found evident contradictory the two Larry´s sentences, so or Larry has a problem with the logic, and maybe also the logic is relative for him, or he is fooling himself in order to have a moral life without moral truth.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Chesterton,

    You've lost me. Where exactly is the contradiction?

    Between you, me and the blogosphere, I don't worry at all about living a moral life. I worry about taking care of my wife and children, doing my job, and continuing to learn and grow. I see no reason to dwell on whether I'm a "good" person, either by your bullshit definition or mine. Keeping score of my good and bad deeds is just a waste of time when I can help my wife with the dishes or play tag with the kids.

    So, no offense, but fuck morality.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Larry Tanner said...
    "You've lost me. Where exactly is the contradiction?"

    Let me try again, if the morality is relative to the culture how you can ask punishment for someone that do not have your culture? It is ok for you if the taliban ask a punishment for you because your wife do not use a burka?

    "I don't worry at all about living a moral life. I worry about taking care of my wife and children, doing my job, and continuing to learn and grow. I see reason to dwell on whether I'm a "good" person, either by your bullshit definition or mine. Keeping score of my good and bad deeds is just a waste of time when I can help my wife with the dishes or play tag with the kids.

    So, no offense, but fuck morality."

    Why more or less than 30% of your posts are about morality?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Chesterton,

    You've tried again, and still I don't see what the specific contradiction is. Can you explain it to me?

    I write about morality often. It's an interesting subject. But when it comes to me worrying about if I am a good person or a good enough person, I don't dwell on that. Morality in the abstract, interesting; personal moral accounting, unimportant.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The contradiction is simple:
    Claim: You take no high ground morally; you do not place your cultual morals on a high ground.
    Action: You call for punishment of an immoral act thus taking the moral high ground.

    Moral relativism is not simply acknowledging that different cultures have different morals - the Pope would agree with that.

    Another contradiction:

    " All that relativism actually requires of us is an acknowledgment that our own moral frame of reference is not the only valid one for understanding specific acts. "

    Yes, it is. You have judged the situation wrong by using your moral framework and nothing else. What other moral framework is valid for judging a father's mutilation of his daughter?

    You state your intellectual belief and then act contrary to it.


    ReplyDelete
  20. JonC,

    So, to you:

    "not to take the moral high ground"

    (equals)

    "make no response whatsoever to any actions by another person"


    Your explanation of the second alleged contradiction makes no sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You claim that other cultures have a valid morality and that we must acknowledge this validity. If this is true, by what principle are you then judging the father? By your own morality obviously; thus you are ipso facto denying the moral validity of the father's culture.

    It seems that your moral relativism would be better defined as follows: The idea that there are other moral frames of reference which are valid in judging acts (caveat: as long as this morality is in line with my own; otherwise, it is not valid) - which is basically universal morality.

    ReplyDelete
  22. JonC,

    You are not making sense. Why on earth does my opinion about X's behavior mean that I am denying your opinion?

    Why did you throw in that word "valid"? I don't think I've used it, and really I'm not sure "valid" is a meaningful concept for our subject.

    Look, if X causes Y to die, then you might assess X as being justified while I don't. You might have one final authority you appeal to in making your assessment. I might have the same authority as you (we just read it differently) or I might have a completely different authority. Just because we disagree on the assessment and the final authority doesn't mean we are invalidating one another's morality. On the contrary, we're validating both. Yet we can reason that on assessment better fits the specific case, or custom, or social/cultural goals.

    Does your choice of a presidential candidate mean that my choice (assuming it's different) is invalid?

    ReplyDelete
  23. You said, "All that relativism actually requires of us is an acknowledgment that our own moral frame of reference is not the only VALID one for understanding specific acts. ".

    Choice for president is not a moral act. I think we can make some headway if you could back up your above assertion. Can you provide one example of a moral question in which there are two equally valid answers (one you would agree with, the other you'd disagree with but consider VALID).

    I don't think you are a moral relativist, thankfully.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Choice for president is not a moral act."

    How do you know this?

    A moral question: Is physician assisted suicide moral?

    Person A: Yes, it allows a person to die on her/his own terms, with dignity.

    Person B: No, life is a gift and there is no right to kill oneself.

    I recognize both as reasonable arguments for the position in question. I happen to think one argument is better, but the other has merit and should be considered seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Euthanasia is not really an example of a difference in a moral framework amongst two cultures - but I guess I didn't make the criteria clear. We could point to differences on many moral issues in our cultue but all of them are based on the same morals in the end; ie what action is more benevolent. However, as the West becomes ever more diverse, we probably will see some real tests of moral relativism.

    A moral relativist would say that "exposure" of infants (practiced in many cultures today- New Guinea being one) is outside the bounds of our moral judgement because infanticide is considered ethical in their cultures.

    Wikipedia has this to say

    "Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it."

    ReplyDelete
  26. Here's what you requested:

    "Can you provide one example of a moral question in which there are two equally valid answers (one you would agree with, the other you'd disagree with but consider VALID)."

    I fulfilled your request. Now you want to move the goalposts. Fine.

    On your exposure example, and using the Wikipedia definition you cite, a moral relativist could acknowledge that Culture A considers exposure unethical and that Culture B considers it unethical.

    So I don't see that you have a problem anymore, unless you want to keep telling me what ethical system I really, truly hold. I think it's amazing that you can diagnose me even though we've never met (so far as I know).

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to comment if you have something substantial and substantiated to say.