Moral Relativism versus Good and Evil

[liveoaktx]

After watching the God and Bush doc on Sundance, it seems that the Evangelicals see, foremost, the conflicts in the Middle East as a battle of good versus evil, a world in which diplomacy cannot work because you see the *other* as evil or possessed by Satan.

So why is it that these same religious people don't see torture in the same way, as good versus evil? All of a sudden the black/white apologists want to see a degree of what constitutes torture, whether it is just glorified cheerleading or pranks.

I'm not particularly religious but I do believe I have a strong sense of ethics. To me, the torture issue, coupled with war (warmongering versus peace) ought to be wedge issues for Christianity, brought to the fore, pounded upon and endlessly discussed the same way abortion is brought up as a wedge issue.

[realisticphish]

1. moral relativism is very dangerous

we've been discussing it in philosophy class, and it is clear that adhereing to MR leads to terrible things, like rape, murder, and of course torture. these fundies won't ADMIT they are relativists, but indeed they are. i agree that it should be a wedge issue. the problem is how to do so. the media isnt helping

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[liveoaktx]

2. I'm going to make a car sign "Torture is Evil"

[realisticphish]

3. thats a good idea

it seems like stating the obvious, but the obvious is exactly what people arent getting

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Viking12]

4. Either you're not paying attention or you have a bad teacher

becasue you obviously don't understand the premise behind "moral relativism"

[realisticphish]

5. no, i do

im simply extrapolating from the principles of moral or ethical relativism.

essentially, the relativist claims that morality comes from not one source, a fundamental good or bad, but a difference based on perspective. some claim this applies to groups such as nations, but it can also be applied to the individual.

so let's say, in culture A, act X is considered morally good. culture B considers act X morally evil. lets say act X involves a member of each culture, e.g., a murder. so, for person A, murdering person B is morally good, and desireable. Obviously, person B feels otherwise, but if both cultures are relativistic, than B cannot claim that the murder is bad, because from A's perspective, it is good. B can fight back, but at that point it is simply a matter of power, not moral standing.

so, if we, the US (assmuing we're relativist for this argument), think torture is bad, but saudi arabia thinks torture is good, then WE CANNOT INTERFERE, or claim that they are doing anything immoral.

that is the danger; any individual can justify any act whatsoever, because it is their personal morality, which cannot be challenged

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Viking12]

6. So tell me, where does this "fundamental good or bad" come from?

All ethics and morals are relative. Keep reading.

[realisticphish]

7. i dont appreciate the condescention

im perfectly willing to debate, but please don't be an ass

anyway, relativism IS unfalsifiable, or at last i have found it to be.

The problem is, the non-evidence of an absolute morality does not mean one does not exist. simply saying "well, where is it?" proves or disproves nothing. i will grant you that there is therefore no evidence FOR an absolute morality.

but that doesnt matter. because i am not a moral absolutist. i am generally utilitarian, though i have not quite settled on my beliefs.

but if you insist things are all relative, fine. lets make it that way. no more laws, no prison, no punishment; murder, theft, perjury, rape, torture, and private ownership of nuclear weapons are all now ok, because morality is relative. a relativistic society is thus incredibly unstable; reasonable realists will of course not do these things. but some will, and noone can do a damn thing about it, because if you are relativistic, you will not interfere with another's morality

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Viking12]

9. You're confusing moral relativism with the Principle of Non-Interference

Moral relativism doesn't preclude interference. Star Trek philosophy does.

[realisticphish]

11. i dont watch star trek

by forcing what you think is moral, you are therefore insisting that the deed is moral for the other person, which clearly violates relativism.

if you are simply justifying it via power, i.e., the most powerful entity is the one whose morality prevails, then you have no place arguing against the religious right; if they have the power to put their morality in place, then they are justified in doing so


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Viking12]

14. No, I have very clear standards of moral and immoral

I am perfectly willing to act on those standards. I just have no pretensions that they are derived from some fictitious Metaphysical Truth.

You claim to be a utilitarian so I'll assume you're familiar with JS Mill's On Liberty. Mill makes an argument for the justification and protection of speech rights based not on some specious notion of Truth (i.e Natural Law) but on pragmatic reasons. Free speech is necessary for the search for truth (truth in the small "t" truth, i.e. social truths). The search for truth is good and just because it has very practical benefits to society as a whole and I will protect that right, even fight for that right if necessary. Morality and ethics don't need to be derived from an abstract set of Metaphysical Truths or Moral Absolutes or whatever the hell you want to call them. Morality and ethics are best derived from good reasons.

You do realize your simplistic, misundrstanding of the assumptions of moral relativism would get you a front row seat at the Moral Majority meeting, don't you?

[realisticphish]

15. exactly

>Morality and ethics don't need to be derived from an abstract set of Metaphysical Truths or Moral Absolutes or whatever the hell you want to call them. Morality and ethics are best derived from good reasons.<

but i just think that relativism is the wrong way to do so. i DONT think there are real absolutes. but basing morality on individual perspectives, while very democratic, can also be very unstable. by focusing on what is best for society, we can reach a (near) ideal situation for the vast majority of people. im not arguing in favor of absolutes, but rather against relativism

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Viking12]

19. No, you are arguing for relativism, you just don't know it

Moral relativism is not "basing morality on individual perspectives."

Here's a simple syllogism that may help you understand;

All morals and ethics are based in language.

All language is historically and culturally contingent (i.e. relative).

Therefore all morals and ethics are historically and culturally situated (i.e relative).

As I mentioned before keep reading, you're obviously curious. Start with Nietzsche, "Beyond Good and Evil". Then try a little Richard Rorty.

[realisticphish]

23. im only in philosophy 101

and im a psych major, so understand my ignorance on some aspects.

i have read some interesting deviations on what you said; the concept that there may be some absolute morality (murder is bad, etc) and that what is relative is the definition of the act (what is murder).

and i realize that what i was arguing against was not your definition of relativism (cultural; i was reading up on some stuff this evening) but rather the "anything goes" form of relativism, which you are obviously not. im going to bed, now, though god knows how im going to get to sleep thinking about all this :)


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[toddaa]

8. False Bifurcation

Might I suggest that your philosophy teacher needs to assign more reading material. I can't really think of a more diplomatic way of putting this, but as a Taoist I think your extrapolation is stupid. To put it plainly, I am neither a moral relativist in the ridiculous sense that you understand it, nor do I believe in Manichean fantasy of Good v. Evil.

[realisticphish]

12. you misunderstand me

i am not saying that that is what all moral relativists would do, or that this is the end result of relativism. i am simply showing how such acts could be justified.

just out of curiosity, what is your interpretation of moral relativism?

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[liveoaktx]

10. My point is this.... It is the height of absurdity and hypocrisy for

fundies to see such issues as war in absolute terms of *good and evil* while exercising moral relativism (no black and white but grey) on torture. I am myself a moral relativist for a lot of issues (war is morally wrong unless we are ourselves attacked on our soil in the United States, requiring us to defend ourselves-I simply am not anti-war in a black and white sense).

Every time I have brought up torture to a fundie, he or she has no answer. None. So, although I might have some moral relativism myself on the issue of torture, I think framing it as an absolute for a fundie is essential and a wedge issue for anyone who presumes to be a Christian.

[realisticphish]

16. i see your point

sorry to threadjack :)


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Viking12]

20. Also sorry to hijack your thread

but I can't stand when supposedly progressive people parrot the simplistic misrepresentations of philosophy put forth by the RW and had to jump in.

You make a good point. The creation of cognitve dissonance is an effective strategy of persuasion.

[realisticphish]

24. i hate to continue

but i just wanted to clarify that i was NOT just parroting RW philosophy; i was using what my very not RW intro to philos. prof had said in his lecture on ethical/moral relativism

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[kodi]

25. you didn't, you straightened a crooked argument.

Mill's On Liberty is a damned good starting point as you mentioned.

I like Weber because of the emphasis he places on value systems as the driving force for human behavior and culture.

One thing, when you get to be old and have eperienced life and its vicissitudes, its all relative, in part because values change with time and what is important in spring is inconsequential in the autumn.

And Viking, you showed a lot of patience.

[jdots]

13. the winners of the war don't get tryed for war crimes

[mandyky]

17. The sad part about fundies /evangelicals is

They claim the bible holds no contraditions.
They work a lot on fear and guilt.
By the very nature of them wanted to convert others, they assume their beliefs and their god is better.
Anyone who disagrees with them is evil.
Their beliefs allow them to torture, murder, and condemn other, because they feel they are doing god's will.

I used to be a Bible Baptist and went from that to being a anthiest, then agnostic for many years. I am very suspicious of all organized religions (esp the monotheistic ones). I have heard my old church friends say such things as Catholics or any other religious folks that do not focus on personal salvation will go to hell.

I find that many fundies are not Christians but "Paulians" or more concentrated on the old testament.

I spent a long time undoing the Hell, Satan, good evil beliefs I picked up from fundies. Not sure I believe in moral relativism, either. I just live in a society and agree to abide by the laws of the land or if I break them and get caught I pay the prescribed cost.
My own moral code is the Golden Rule (do unto others...) but I never knew that was from the Bible until I was in my early teens.

[Undercover Owl]

18. torture issue

The good/evil dichotomy extends across us vs them. That is, the torture is just so much fraternity-pranks because the US soldiers are all completely good and the Iraqi prisoners are all completely bad.

[liveoaktx]

22. I heard someone making this point on Cspan the other day

I recorded it because it was so appalling but it emphasizes the point you're making.

Torture

I saw part of a show on FSTV a couple of months ago about the Good Versus Evil Comic Book World Bush is espousing, that, like the movies, he pushes the "We're the Good Guys fighting against Evil" and for fundies who want the world defined this way, he's a hero, the standup guy in Jesus' court fighting Satan.

So you may be right that, in a frame where the Iraqis/Muslims/Saddam as a sort of swirl of anti-Christendom is juxtaposed against the Might-Is-Right-Military-Jesus-Converting-The-World-And-Fighting-Satan, even *Torture is Evil* will not have an effect. But I'm still going to publicly show it anyway.

[bloom]

21. I've thought about that, also...

You might appreciate this - I found it today while surfing. In 1999 - it was the "Nazi camps were places of torture". It wouldn't have occured to people that Americans would be condoning this so soon....


"A concentration camp is a place where people are imprisoned not because of any crimes they have committed, but simply because of who they are. Although many groups have been singled out for such persecution throughout history, the term "concentration camp" was first used at the turn of the century in the Spanish-American and Boer Wars.

During World War II, America's concentration camps were clearly distinguishable from Nazi Germany's. Nazi camps were places of torture, barbarous medical experiments and summary executions; some were extermination centers with gas chambers. Six million Jews were slaughtered in the Holocaust. Many others including Gypsies, Poles, homosexuals and political dissidents were also victims of Nazi concentration camps.

In recent years, concentration camps have existed in the former Soviet Union, Cambodia and Bosnia.

Despite all the differences, all had one thing in common: the people in power removed a minority group from the general population and the rest of the society let it happen."


From a brochure distributed as part of American Concentration Camps: Remembering The Japanese American Experience, an exhibit at the Ellis Island Immigration Musuem, April 3, 1998-January 5, 1999.

-------------------------



Historical References to Japanese American
"Concentration Camps"


"I'm for catching every Japanese in America, Alaska, and Hawaii now and putting them in concentration camps. . . . Damn them! Let's get rid of them now!"

CONGRESSMAN JOHN RANKIN, Congressional record, December 15, 1941



"In an experience of nearly three decades I have never found it harder to arouse the American public on any important issue than on this. Men and women who know nothing of the facts (except possibly the rose-colored version which appears in the public press) hotly deny that there are concentration camps. Apparently that is a term to be used only if the guards speak German and carry a whip as well as a rifle."

NORMAN THOMAS, Christian Century, July 29, 1942.



In response to a reporter's question about the West Coast "evacuation," the President called Nisei "Japanese people from Japan who are citizens," and went on to state ". . . it is felt by a great many lawyers that under the Constitution they can't be kept locked up in concentration camps."

PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT, Press Conference, November 21, 1944, FDR Library, #982.



"I have made a lot of mistakes in my life. . . . One is my part in the evacuation of the Japanese from California in 1942. . . . I don't think that served any purpose at all. . . . We picked them up and put them in concentration camps. That's the truth of the matter. And as I look back on it--although at the time I argued the case--I am amazed that the Supreme Court ever approved it."

TOM CLARK, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, San Diego Union, July 10, 1966.



"They were concentration camps. They called it relocation but they put them in concentration camps, and I was against it. We were in a period of emergency, but it was still the wrong thing to do."

PRESIDENT HARRY S. TRUMAN, Interview with Merle Miller, 1961.

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/haiku/camps.htm

[despairing optimist]

26. Torture? What torture?

It depends on the definition. As they say, the devil's in the details, and he didn't stop Alberto Gonzales.

If you asked Satan whether he thought he was evil, I doubt he'd answer with a yes. He really believes his cause is just.