The idea of their being a magazine dedicated to the subject of moral relativism makes me a bit uncomfortable. The concept is used to excuse so many atrocities. But as I frequently point out on other topics, that doesn’t mean that the idea itself is wrong.
DuWayne Brayton, writing in the aptly titled Moral Relativism Magazine, has gone a long way toward convincing me that this is a topic we need to address better. As he points out in his article, “Moral Relativism and Responsibility”:
Put simply, moral relativism is the values-neutral assertion that morality is relative to one or all of the following: time, space, culture and the individual. It holds that there are no universal objective moral truths. Moral relativism is not the prospect that morality is only relative to culture. Neither is it the proposition that one must simply accept the moral frames of others as valid – all that it does is recognize that there are no universal objective moral truths.
He goes on to make a very good case for the impossibility of moral absolutism on a broad level. Though he never states it explicitly, he demonstrates that even those moral ideals that we would consider absolute become unrecognizable when filtered through specific circumstances.
A few years ago, Kristoff of the New York Times wrote a piece about his experience in Darfur early on in the genocide. After reading it, I was literally ill for a few days, especially as I considered a particular incident. This incident was a major influence on my views about morality. As Kristoff was traveling through the region, he came upon a rather young girl gathering water at a well. Both concerned for her safety and because of her size, he decided help her carry the water. He was somewhat shocked when they came to the treeline and he discovered the child’s father waiting in hiding. Put short, the father explained that this daughter was the most expendable of his children. That is was certain death for him if he was caught by the Janjiweed militia, while it was possible that his daughter might not be raped and killed if she were caught. That he needed to survive, because he had other children to care for.
One of the best things about DuWayne is his tendency to make you think when you’re not sure you want to. It looks like this magazine may be doing the same. Check it out. It’s not free, but an electronic version is very cheap. A few of the authors have also made their work available elsewhere, so you can get a better taste before taking a big bite.
There’s one thing I stopped doing and that is saying “I’d do X in situation Y”, when Y is a problem of a magnitude I haven’t experienced yet.
There are simply situations where there is no good choice, only several shitty ones and you don’t know what you’d do unless you’ve been there.
I think that anythig else is dishonest.
I agree, it’s good to keep in mind that morality is relative. I mean, the basis I use for making moral decisions is “what will promote the well-being of humans and other living beings”? Why is it a good thing to promote the well-being of humans and other living beings? I have no real answer, besides the fact that I am human and wish to see other beings flourish rather than suffer. That is ultimately arbitrary.
That’s why I view life as a giant art project. It’s arbitrary what you decide to create, but if you’re lucky and put some effort into it, it might be beautiful.
Relative morality doesn’t mean no morality. I can see things that are close to absolute in most circumstances.
I’ve always thought long term survival of the group is the ultimate morality. If something is good for one group but bad for groups around them, its usually not good for the group in the long run.
With the Dad and Daughter situation above, the Dad was looking for what was best for the group. The smallest in the group was the least threatening and was in the least danger of the group. Losing anyone in the group hurt the group as a whole. The group would die without water. In a war zone, survival is a matter of minimizing risks.
One of the easiest ways to improve your thinking on this subject is to stop using the word “morality” as an unmodified noun. Use something like “moral intuitions,” or whatever the circumstances require.
Loads of people might object to the statement “morality is relative to time, place, culture, and the individual.” But few people can object seriously to the statement “human moral intuitions vary based on time, place, culture, and the individual.” Greater precision cuts out a lot of error.
I think one of the major issues with the moral relativism versus objectivism debate is that relativism is used to excuse attrocities by the spectators, while objectivism is used to excuse attrocities by the perpetrators.
I have yet to see a genocidal maniac not proclaim his moral prescriptions to be objective truth.
Bruce –
The problem with that is that moral relativism doesn’t mean you just accept what others are doing and let it stand. All that it means is accepting that the people perpetrators of a genocide might be operating within their own accepted moral frame – though I am inclined to suspect that most people who perpetrate genocide are not so cavalier as to not be bothered by it.
I went to school with a woman who was a refugee. I didn’t know her all that well, but her parents were really neat people who were very involved with her schooling. Turned out when I met her as an adult and the topic of genital mutilation came up, that her parents had considered how to find some way, make the sacrifices necessary, to travel to where they could have that done to her. In the end they decided that it wasn’t quite worth the sacrifices they would have to make.
I find what they wanted to do morally repugnant and would happily do anything in my power to stop it. That doesn’t mean I think her parents are morally repugnant and neither did she. Moral relativism is also a way to separate people from their actions (note – not to refrain from punishing misdeeds) to find they may well be decent people who believe wrong things.
I’ve never understood why an accusation of moral nihilism is supposed to be an insult, either. I find the idea of external morality rather alarming (mind you, I have trust and authority issues you could drive a bus along!). If you accept that your ethics come from your own worldview, and are an intellectual and emotional construction of you and your culture, relativism is an inevitable consequence unless you are so arrogant as to assume you have the only right answer (or even that there is a right answer to have). I think a lot of people long for the security of externally imposed rules, which makes both nihilism and relativism abhorrent.
DuWayne
While I agree with your criticism, my point was more that while moral relativism often gets accused of ignoring evil, moral objectivism is frequently the root excuse for comitting it.