Moral Relativism, or a poor excuses of crappy behaviour

[vonGarvin]

Moral Relativism

In many threads, I have seen arguments to excuse reprehensible behaviour from people of other cultures.  “It’s their way,” is one excuse I’ve often heard.  To counter, I’ve often mentioned that this is a poor excuse and perfect example of moral relativism.  So, I thought I’d do this wee post to explain myself.  So, I’ll start out explaining a bit on “ethics” or “morality”.    Then I’ll get into the difference between objectivism and relativism.  I hope to make this as least painful as possible.

Ethics basically states that some “things” are good, bad or neutral.  What these “things” are exactly has confounded philosophers for millennia.  To illustrate, let me explain.  For every act by an agent (a thinking, rational person), there is first an intent formulated by the person, then there is the act itself, and then there are the consequences or results of said action. 

First, let us consider the acts that agents commit.  To commit acts that go counter to established norms is considered immoral.  This is Normative Ethics.  Think of the Old Testament in which one can find the Ten Commandments.  “I am the Lord your God, and you shall have no other gods before me” is but one example.  To do anything counter to any of the commandments, or rules, would be immoral, according to normative ethics.  This talks about the act, and they are then judged as being good, bad (or evil) or neutral.
Now think ahead to the New Testament, which is where we can find examples of Virtue Ethics.  Essentially the lesson is that if you are a virtuous person, and the acts you commit will “good”.  (Aristotle also taught this as well, in which he talks of being an exemplar.  Also, I think it was Saint Francis of Assisi who said “Preach the Gospel, and, if necessary, use words”.  In other words, by your very person, if you are good, then your acts will be good.  This essentially is talking about the intent that an agent has.  So, the theory goes, if your intent is good, then your actions etc will also be good.
Now, consider the consequences of actions.  The theory essentially states that irrespective of the agent’s intent, or the act itself, the moral worth is derived from the consequence or result of an action.  For example, firing a rifle is amoral; however, if it hits and kills someone who doesn’t deserve to be shot, then it is immoral.  If it hits and kills someone who does deserve to be shot, then it’s moral.
Are we confused yet?  I’m not even going to talk about utilitarianism or categorical imperatives! 
So, irrespective of any of the above, certain “things” are considered moral, immoral or amoral.  I am not going to put forth my own theories on which of the above I consider correct, but the specific theories aside, philosophy, much like any other social science, is still a science.  All sciences have truths that are true irrespective of time, manner or place.  Consider mathematics.  2+2=4 is true today, was true in 400000000 BC, and will continue to be true on Stardate 3124.3.  It’s true in Russia, it’s true in my living room, and it’s true everywhere.  And it remains true whether or not someone knows mathematics.  Take an infant for example, they don’t have a concept of numbers and wouldn’t recognise numerals.  So, keeping this in mind, EVERYTHING is moral, immoral or amoral.  And ethics is universal and not prone to individual or cultural interpretation.  What exactly is moral?  Many are unsure.  Some feel that a deity of sorts has set forth a code.  Others say that we know what is moral, immoral and amoral a priori.  I hardly think that anyone can articulate what makes something moral, immoral or amoral; however, most reasonable people of any culture, faith, background or nationality will agree that they can recognise it when they see it.  Much like colours.  Describe orange.  Don’t give examples of orange, describe it.  And I’m not talking about the wavelengths frequency or whatever.  I bet you couldn’t.  Yet you could recognise it in a flash.  Ethics is much like that.
So, just because Ahmed, Pierre, Andrew or Mao think that it’s okay to do “this” (no matter what it is), you must look at “that” outside of that person’s background or culture to judge it, and not from frequency.  Look at the intent, look at the act, and look at the consequences.  It’s a big job, but just because “it’s their way”, it doesn’t make it right or wrong.

 

[Nemo888]

Some background on the source of our current moral relativism and it implications on Western "freedom". You are just looking at the tiniest tip of the iceberg Viking.

Prologue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAluyt5_kic
1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNZ28na7ksY&feature=related
2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV_LmK7_kxo&feature=related
3.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f-_JlI1Ck4&feature=related
4.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edOLc21YP-U&feature=related

 

[vonGarvin]

I'm not talking about Freedom, individual or otherwise.  I'm simply talking about ethics in the broadest sense in order to explain why moral relativism is shoddy at best, and how it is used to excuse away abhorrent behaviour or actions. 

 

[snoman317]

Ah, absolutism vs. relativism was one topic of philosophy I rather enjoyed.
The entire class supported relativism initially, but after further discussion it was clear that absolutism is a much more appropriate concept.

 

[vonGarvin]

Ah, absolutism vs. relativism was one topic of philosophy I rather enjoyed.
The entire class supported relativism initially, but after further discussion it was clear that absolutism is a much more appropriate concept.

It's not so much "support".  I mean, one could support 2+2=5 all they want, but they would still be wrong.  But I know what you mean.  Most "think" that relativism is "it"; however, once examined, they see that it falls apart like a house of cards.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I think that the purpose of your argument is to address culturally speciific aspects of morality, but nowhere do i see, in your argument, any reference to cultural biases, and basis.

Am I missing something?

 

[Nivvy]

My first post ever! Lol I just started regularly browing these forums last week because I plan on enlisting, but i saw this thread, and i couldn't help but to finally register!

Ahh, this is a topic I was actually interested during my gr.12 english class It's only been a year since then, so it's still quite fresh in my mind

Does everyone have the same morals? Do Hindus think eating cows are moral? Nope. Thus morality is relative.

First, let me explain the difference between morality and ethics
Morality has a religious foundation, whereas ethics does not. Where did you get your ethics from? Your parents? Where did they get their's from? If you keep peeling back, eventually you're going to reach nothing. Therefore ethics has no solid foundation. Morality at least has some sort, an example being the bible- although it's debatable how "accurate" they are.

Anyway, this is just what i've thought of, so take it with a grain of salt, but i think the most powerful people/countries determine what is morally acceptable or not. It's like history being written by the victors.

I'll use Hinduism again as an example. If it was the most influential religion in the world, people will look down on you if you eat beef. You will be an outcast, and people will be disgusted with you. But really, who's to say someone's ethics or morals are "wrong"? What gives you the "higher than thou" attitude? It's because we're so powerful that we can force these moral/ethics onto them. Yes, some things people in other cultures do are disgusting to us, but some things we do may be considered extremely immoral and digusting to them.Now, what i don't agree with are people who commit "immoral" acts although they themselves believe it's immoral. And then try to justify what they did by "blaming" it on their culture.

 

[Nivvy]

I had to stop there, because my chat thingy kept scrolling up and spazzed out so i couldn't type anymore...  But i'll wait for more responses until i type more

 

[vonGarvin]

Hi Nivvy
Welcome to the forums!
Now, coming at you as a dude with a degree in Philosophy, I have to disagree with some of your assertions.  Morality=Ethics, sort of.  Morality talks about the moral value of things, good, bad or neutral.  Ethics is very similar, if not exactly the same.  More of the theory of morality. 
Morality may exist in religion, but it is simply an ethical theory.  Christianity, as I've pointed out, has both normative ethics encompassed in the ten commandments, and virtue ethics, encompassed in the example of Jesus Christ.  Some Christian sects are more normative (usually the fundamentalists), where others are virtuist (usually the contextualists, such as Roman Catholics).  My point being that "Good" is more than just consequentialist, or categorical imperative based.  I believe that intent+virtue+act+consequence is the basis of judging an "event" good, bad or amoral.
Take speeding.  Suppose that some guy wants to get home before his wife does, so that he can do something nice for her (good intent).  This blurs into his virtue (he naturally does good things for his wife).  His speeding is 10 km/h over the limit, which is against the laws of the province (bad, in that it violates the authority of the society in which he lives), but he's driving on an open road, with no other cars around (good, in that nobody gets hurt and he arrives home OK). Kant would say that his speeding is immoral, others say that it's not.
Take person #2.  He too is speeding.  He is driving fast because he wants to avoid the law after a bank heist (bad intent, furthering a previous bad, or immoral act).  Again, it blurs into virtue (he's an habitual criminal).  His speeding is also 10 km/h over the limit, and again, Kant calls it immoral for the same reason.  He's driving in a part of the city in which there are nuns and orphans and charity workers, on the streets for some reason, and he runs a few down (immoral, in that innocents are killed by his acts).  So, person #2 could probably be easily judged as committing an immoral act, even though he's doing the same as the other dude: driving 10 km/h over the limit.
As I stated in my original post, ethics, or morality, or "Good" and "Evil" are universal.  Yes, all factors must be taken into account, and I just put this here because people are too quick to judge, or to excuse, without looking at all factors.

 

[gillbates]

I think that the purpose of your argument is to address culturally speciific aspects of morality, but nowhere do i see, in your argument, any reference to cultural biases, and basis.

Am I missing something?

In many threads, I have seen arguments to excuse reprehensible behaviour from people of other cultures.

It would be interesting if Technoviking posted links to said threads/posts.

Then again, I suspect he didn't do so to prevent this thread from going down the drain.

 

[Nivvy]

Hey, thanks! Haha at first i thought you were against moral relativism! I didn't really closely read your first post, because the huge block of text murdered my eyes, and there was a lot of terminology i am not familiar with.

Anyway, upon closer inspection, i guess we have similar  views on morality, except for the whole morality=ethics part. I'm wont argue with you on that one, because i'm just a highschool graduate, whereas you have a philosophy degree!

About the husband trying to get home to his wife though. I would consider it an immoral act, because in a way, it is selfish. He is putting others at risk because of his rush to get home.

A few questions, just for conversation sake. Do you think Winston Churchill was being moral by letting the germans bomb coventry? I don'tk now how influential the german enigma was to winning the war, but do you think it was justified? To let thousands of people die without warning, in exchange for victory? Or should he have tried to save them, and find another strategy?
p.s. is the site going really slow for you guys too, or is it just me?

 

[vonGarvin]

About the husband trying to get home to his wife though. I would consider it an immoral act, because in a way, it is selfish. He is putting others at risk because of his rush to get home.

  That's why I threw in there that he's on an open, empty highway, with no chance to put others in risk, removing that part of it.  This is just a thought experiment, anyway, for argument's sake.

A few questions, just for conversation sake. Do you think Winston Churchill was being moral by letting the germans bomb coventry? I don'tk now how influential the german enigma was to winning the war, but do you think it was justified? To let thousands of people die without warning, in exchange for victory?

This could be a long-winded answer.  First, assume that the Allies has the moral upper hand (eg: their cause was good, or at least gooder-er than the Germans')  So, UK victory = Good.  (Moral Good, not "Good for the UK")  The UK Ultra (Counter to the Enigma) was vital to the UK war effort.  So, assuming that giving away the Ultra secret by evacuating or defending Coventry, in which hundreds, not thousands, died, would lead to either more UK deaths or, worse yet, UK defeat, then yes, it was justified.

Or should he have tried to save them, and find another strategy?

 
The UK position at that time was desperate.  There was little time to find another strategy.

p.s. is the site going really slow for you guys too, or is it just me?

It's slow, and That is immoral ;D

 

[Nauticus]

I'm not talking about Freedom, individual or otherwise.  I'm simply talking about ethics in the broadest sense in order to explain why moral relativism is shoddy at best, and how it is used to excuse away abhorrent behaviour or actions.

So your argument is that any action shouldn't be judged by the actor's ethics to be determined good or bad.

I'm going to agree, but other peoples' actions shouldn't be judged by OUR ethics either.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

A few questions, just for conversation sake. Do you think Winston Churchill was being moral by letting the germans bomb coventry? I don'tk now how influential the german enigma was to winning the war, but do you think it was justified? To let thousands of people die without warning, in exchange for victory? Or should he have tried to save them, and find another strategy?
p.s. is the site going really slow for you guys too, or is it just me?

I am afraid that sometimes you have to take a hit to win. There is an aspect of proportionality and context as well. Sacrificing a city to win a small war far away for a tiny island might well be offside. Sacrificing a city to save the rest of the nation in a world war against a ruthless enemy who has just conquered your allies and you are standing alone is, to me, a painful but necessary decision.

Regarding the thread, I am not a fan of moral relativism. I can give a little when it comes to folkways, but when it comes to mores I will be much less flexible. Having said that, I also believe the old concept of sovereignty. What happens in a country is primarily the business of that country unless it affects the outside world.

 

[vonGarvin]

So your argument is that any action shouldn't be judged by the actor's ethics to be determined good or bad.

I'm going to agree, but other peoples' actions shouldn't be judged by OUR ethics either.

Agreed.  The trick is that we may or may not know what "good" or "evil" is.  Ethics are universal, and that's my point, I suppose.  With intent (which is internal), virtue (again, internal), the act which follows, and the consequences therefrom. 

I guess this is why philosophers have been arguing this for millenia.  In general, however, some things could be seen as "good" and others as "evil".  Walking into an orphanage and gunning down the orphans with a machine gun without any clear purpose other than to kill them one could argue is "evil", whereas if those same orphans were all bent on destruction of humanity, and had the means and intent to do so in the next five seconds, that act could be argued as "good".  Anyway, that is a way-out example to illustrate a point.

But ethics do transcend into law.  If I kill someone by accident, then that could be called manslaughter or homicide or whatever.  If I intend to kill someone (say while I'm robbing a bank or something), then that jumps up to murder. 

My real point is simply that there is something that is "good".  We think we may know what it is, and we could very well be wrong.  But to excuse away others' behaviours, no matter what that behaviour is, as "just their way", is relativism, or subjectivism, and that just means that there is no universal "good".

Of course, culture and all factors must be taken into account.  Consider the "old person on the ice floe".  As the story goes, the Inuit would put their aged on an ice floe to die.  If I were to put my mom on a hunk of ice in the Bay of Quinte tomorrow, I'd be rightly held account for trespassing laws, and I would also be argued to be committing an evil act.  But for the Inuit, a society in which food was scarce, and where over population would kill that entire society, it was necessary for the greater good of that society to do so.  ("Utilitarianism" at its finest, at least in one of its forms).  Once food became plentiful, with medicines and other alternatives, it was no longer necessary to put the aged on ice floes.  So, yes, culture and other circumstances come into play, but to simply wish away abhorrent behaviour is, well, in my opinion, abhorrent.


(And there is a reason why this is in Radio Chatter.  This is just discussion, and I don't think anyone has the absolute answer).

 

[brihard]

I personally feel that the balance of morality is appropriate struck when a fairly permissive moral relativism is constrained within Mills' Harm Principle- that is to say, we each possess pretty much unlimited liberty to act as we wish so long as what we do does not confer harm on another individual. That harm has to be present, in my mind, for something to be truly amoral. This harm doesn't have to be directly, immediately tangible. I consider drunk driving immoral because one is presenting what society has deemed to be an unusually high degree of risk to other drivers. Cheating on taxes doesn't hurt any one particular person, but in defrauding the government that additional financial burden is distributed among everyone who does pay up. The same amount of harm is still there, just distributed so as to be barely noticeable.

I mentioned moral relativism specifically to acknowledge the moral significance that some things have in other societies. Behaviours across cultures will necessarily vary, and some may seem simply weird to us but convey great moral import to that culture- I.e., the aforementioned sacred cows. I recognize that it is a truly moral question for Hindus, and culturally they have a right to impose these slightly odd (IMO) moral expectations, because really nobody is harmed by it in any substantial way. In Canada there has recently been court action around questions of free expression vs hate speech, where some people have said or published some pretty awful things; and yet they have a right to because it doesn't actually harm anyone short of causing some relatively mild offense. Do I think it's right to post essentially hatred remarks about Jews, homosexuals, Muslims, or what have you? No- but I don't believe such acts to be essentially immoral so long as no-one is hurt- or, in the legal interpretations, there is no specific incitement to further hate or to violence. There are a lot of acts that ar epersonally reprehensible to me, yet I cannot condemn them on a moral basis because in the balance of harm v. liberty, they are not harmful enough to warrant a transgression on an individual's freedoms.

But then we get into things like honour killings, or multiple marriages, or religiously motivated violence, or sticking women in Burkas. At this point harm, or indefensible impositions on liberty are present (I consider an unnecessary imposition on an individual's liberty to in and of itself be harm), and culturally based moral relativism ceases to be an excuse for allowing behaviours that don't conform to our norms.

I don't know what absolute good, bad, evil or what have you is, but I think that liberty is the highest objective we can hold in any moral determination, and harm to another individual is the only real thing that can outweigh this. If it means some people or cultures do things that are weird or perhaps even offensive to us, but that don't cause us or others harm, then so be it.

 

[Antoine]

Anyone could give some references (books English and/or French) which discuss about the present thread. I was also looking for books about ethic-moral-military action/duties.

Cheers,