Topics Ethics

Question I've had an ongoing discussion with several friends who, independently, argue that morality is an artifice and claim moral relativism permits a host of what I identify as preventable injustices. I'd love to articulate clearly what I "know" is the distinction between admittedly fluid moral distinctions (Right/Wrong, Good/Bad) and more absolute truths (deliberately harming others is to be avoided/prevented, even absent an organized belief system there are guiding principles for an individual). Am I incapable of defending the notion of an(y) Absolute Good without support from a dogmatic belief system? I may be an atheist and nihilist but just because the Universe is an unjust, entropic whirlpool doesn't mean we can't strive for moments of Grace while we're here.

Accepted:
June 29, 2010

Comments

I'm afraid there are no easy answers to these very big and important questions. But here are a couple quick responses that sometimes get people who think they are relativists to think about it more.

1. The opposite of Objectivism about morality (there being some Absolute Good grounded in some trans-human source such as God or the Eternal Form or whatever) need not be Relativism (there being no facts or truths about what is morally better or worse). Rather, there might be Normative standards of better and worse moral beliefs and behaviors. Is there an Objective fact regarding who is the Absolute Best rock band (or artist or movie or politician) of all time? What trans-human source would (could) ground such facts? But do negative answers to these questions thereby mean that there are simply no standards by which to judge which are the better and worse rock bands (artists, movies, politicians, etc.)? Surely, the Beatles, the Stones, U2, and Led Zeppelin are contenders and the Violent Femmes, Kiss, InSync, and Korn should not be in the running. More importantly, we can judge the sort of reasoning people offer to back up their nominees for the best bands, artists, movies, politicians, etc. ("I just like them" is not as good a reason as "They have sold more albums than any other band", and "I'd like to have a beer with him/her" is not as good a reason to think he/she is a good politician as "He considers carefully the opinions of a range of experts, including those who disagree with him.") Humans are capable of normative reasoning and judgments. Just as we can offer better and worse reasons for judgments about these cultural/political phenomena, we can offer better and worse reasoning for various behaviors, interpersonal relations, political systems, distributions of benefits, and other moral phenomena.

2. Confront the relativist with Hitler's (or any other) genocide, genital mutilation, pedophilia, honor killing (e.g., fathers killing their daughters because they have been raped), and so on. At a minimum, such cases seem to raise the question of why the burden of proof should be on you to demonstrate that relativism is false and not, instead, on the relativist who cannot explain why these behaviors are not morally wrong (or even worse than other behaviors). And if they say the burden is on you because you cannot say that God makes it so, then raise the Euthyphro argument (e.g., see here). Hope this helps!