Moral Relativism – in answer to a comment on “Religion Running Scared”
There was one comment from my previous blogpost that I thought I’d better answer, so I took the liberty of making it a new post.
This comment was left by “Me“. It addresses a few points, so I’ll answer it in sections. It reads:
Interesting article, but I disagree on the moral relativism thing. Defending moral relativism allows you to say that what is OK in one society, is OK in that society, regardless of how offensive it may be. So, for example, if circumcision, suttee, burqa, martyrdom, and other potentially obnoxious religious practices are OK in their respective societies, then, by your reasoning, and your defence of moral relativism, you have to OK these practices. America, for example, will no longer be allowed to play ‘world police’ and go around imposing democracy on everyone.
With regards to moral relativism, it’s not so much that I think that humans differ in different areas of the earth in their wants and needs for well being. What I was hoping to get across is the idea that “accepted” morality differs from culture to culture. What one culture sees as morally OK, another sees as repugnant. Take for example the recent laws passed in New York City legalising gay marriage. There are people in the world who see this as morally reprehensible, whole tracts of religious people who see it as the ultimate sin, and even people who live in New York City who find this law to be disgusting. Personally, I welcome the law, as it signifies another step toward a reasonable and rational society. After all, what happens in another person’s bedroom is of no interest to me, and nor should it be. Both I and the person who sees homosexuality as a sin would bring this point to bear as a point of morality, whatever the source of this morality. This is because morality is based on personal judgement calls from a society, culture or belief, not based on a physical or testable certainty. If this is true, then moral relativism is a reality, whether you like it or not.
In the Rabbi’s case, he’s probably thinking about Hitler. If moral relativism is true, then Hitler was OK. Since Hitler was not OK, it follows that moral relativism cannot be true.
I’m not sure Hitler was acting on morals, I think he was acting on megalomania. He would probably use morality to sell it to others, but I think that his actions were wrong because they go against the relative well being of many people, as enacted by jut one person.
So whence do we derive our universally-felt moral repugnances, e.g. infanticide, to use his example? Well, certainly not from the Bible. Psalms 137:9 “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”
I agree, as I’ll outline briefly below.
The answer must lie in science. One example theory I’ve seen is primate group cooperation. So the idea runs like this: since primates, such as chimps, display group cooperation, aka morality, morality must be a survival instinct, or evolutionarily beneficial. So it’s actually not that hard to come up with a universalist moral system based in science.
In the Rabbi’s case, it’s obvious that he draws his morality from his religion, because he says so. In a thought experiment, do you think the Rabbi would think that things like infanticide, rape and murder were right if he didn’t believe in a higher power? Probably not, because these judgement calls sit much deeper within us, in our social and interpersonal cultures. Some of it comes from learned behaviours which link to our motor neurons and our ability to have empathy (i.e. I have seen that a person in pain dislikes it. My brain can imagine that sensation, it looks unpleasant, therefore I would not wish it upon myself, nor others.) Then there’s larger scale judgements, based on what allows humanity to best get along. Of course these judgements will be stronger in smaller and tighter-knit communities, starting from the family, moving upward to the village, state, country etc.
I think the problem lies with saying that “Science is a moral system” because, of course, it’s not. By its very nature science is amoral, and in isolation is incapable of making calls on morality. But what we can do is see what it is among humans that bind us together, what is it that makes us all the same, and how would we all best like to live? Again Sam Harris has eluded to this in The Moral Landscape, saying that there must be a testable bottom-line that best suits us all. I’m not so sure about that, but I’m not totally uncoinvinced either. What is important here is to say that science cannot be a system of morality, it can only offer us the answers to questions like “is human wellbeing universal and quantifable, and if so to what extent can we measure and produce that wellbeing?” I think this is what could be accepted as a morality based on a scientific platform, but not looking to science for the answers to moral questions.
I hope this makes my standpoint a little clearer. Thank you for your 2c “Me”.