At first glance Relativism is attractive because it accepts differences and appears to be a very tolerant mindset. UWCSEA wants us to be tolerant of differences. Should we be relativists then? What do you think?
There’s a statement I heard a while ago that perfectly sums up my stance on this matter: “I’ll respect your opinion [or moral values/practices] provided your opinion doesn’t disrespect my existence”
As someone who believes in the existence of moral absolutes, I see the word ‘tolerance’ as somewhat irrelevant to the discussion. However, I understand that it can be hard to impose this belief without it resulting in cultural hegemony, which is why it is important to establish that no culture is a flawless representation of morality, and thus its respective paradigm should in no way be exempt from criticism and scrutiny.
On a more prescriptive level I believe that moral absolutes should exist in a series of premises, which form the cornerstone against which all actions and cultural norms are scrutinised. At this point such a prescription resembles Kant’s Categorical Imperative, in that it is likely to run into similar problems when pragmatically applied to situations. In an attempt to evade this kind of problem, I propose that the premises of a universal moral code are not only set out but prioritised. For example, the premise of bodily autonomy being a universal right would not only condemn genital mutilation as immoral, but it could also prevail over the sanctity of (potential) life, which would allow women to have an abortion if they did not want to go through with a pregnancy, or excuse acts of self defence (or even something as simple as lying) to save oneself from sexual assault. Though an undeniably complex process, I believe that formulating and prioritising moral absolutes is essential to establishing a world that does not turn a blind eye to inequality, double standards and injustice in the name of tolerance for other cultures.
I really appreciate your take on the issue Rachel. Perhaps you have realized by now that your solution is something along the lines of Value Pluralism or moral convergence. I agree wholeheartedly with the last point you made.
Like Rachel, I will start with a quote, albeit of lesser repute. A common internet saying says "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid". That is a bit how I feel about relativism. While I appreciate the notion of respecting everyone's opinion and culture etc. there are limits. I choose not to attack the culture but their premises. I believe that any viewpoint that may be considered morally detestable arises from flawed premises. For example, someone may believe that it is okay to pay women less, premise being they are worth less than men. Same for races and religions. Obviously a flawed premise leading to a flawed practice.
However I believe I could almost be a proponent of moral relativism. I can respect any conclusion based on firm, reasonable premises. There are facts and there are premises. The facts are indisputable. The premises can change leading to the conclusion to change. Everyone has the right to observe and assess the premises of a moral claim and find either in favour or not. If many people find the same flaw, it is likely because the claim is flawed. On the other hand, if a moral claim can undergo a peer review with few objections it can be considered a valid view even if it conflicts with another equally valid view.
This has been a bit of a ramble so I will try and sum it up. I can not get on board with a blank check of approval/acceptance to any opinion simply because I am tolerant or because I respect cultures. There are more than one valid points of view on any issue. However, there are an infinite number of wrong ones as well. So, we cannot let opinions go unchallenged. But we also must avoid the fatal error of discarding contrasting views on the basis they don't align - they don't have to, they just have to work and make logical sense.
Mark, what you have said is exactly how the moral realists believe productive debate can occur. You seem to have thoroughly understood the idea that moral claims may be factual claims as well. This is why I believe you are not a moral relativist.
My views in determining on what is wrong or right is simply thus: My views. While that may outright suggest that I completely subscribe to the theory or moral relativism, you would be wrong. Whilst I do agree to a majority of what the theory has to say, particularly that we should respect another person's culture and views as they are entitled to their own opinion, I do acknowledge that on a practical level, this is unacceptable. I can formulate my own opinion about another's actions as a result of his views and background, but I cannot, on my own, deem it moral or otherwise. However, I believe, that if one were to put forth a statement about another's actions, and henceforth find an overwhelming majority of individuals agreeing with that statement, then the statement can be given as true. As we can see, this has practical application in society, as different societies and cultures can come to a consensus that if a majority of them agreed that what another society does is wrong or immoral for the good of humans everywhere, they can take steps to rectify the situation. Although I may not be an entire relativist, I would never call myself an absolutist. I believe for every absolute moral an absolutist claims exists, I will be able to provide a situation where this moral would never work. We should never lie. What if a serial killer asks me where my neighbor has gone? We should never intentionally kill an innocent person. What if by doing so, we save twenty other innocents' lives? And so on. Therefore, I do not believe in the concept of moral absolutes, as morals can fluctuate in any given situation and over time as well, as we see from moral progress. I believe it is impossible to come up with a moral absolute that will hold in any context and withhold the might of time.
Shawn, you might then find the Value Pluralism approach more palatable. I wanted to express one point of concern based on your claim that if "enough" people (i.e. an overwhelming majority) agree that something is moral--that this can then become the Truth? Remember that the majority of the European/American world at one time believed that Slavery was right. Yet none of us can support the truth of this.
I, like Shawn, definitely do not believe that there is such a thing as moral absolutism, and that may partly be due to the fact that I have grown up as a student at UWC from the age of 4. Although we have been taught to be tolerant of cultural differences from a very young age, I firmly believe that "we should not tolerate intolerance". I think that this statement basically sums up a lot of what has already been said, both on the above comments and in class, such as in Shawn's and Gianluca's debate on the Westboro Baptist Church when Shawn said that they try to impose their ideologies onto other people, which completely contradicts the whole theory of relativism. Therefore, why should we accept it?
Of course one could claim that people may have subjective views on what being 'intolerant' entails, but I would argue that in most, if not all cases, it is fairly easy to judge whether an act is in fact tolerant or intolerant. I'm not trying to say that we should all live in dull, neutral societies, but I do think that in many cases the most extremist groups are the ones that are intolerant to different views, and as a result carry out acts that I think most of us would deem morally wrong. Some examples of this are Anders Breivik shooting 77 people in Norway, the banning of women from driving, as well as basic education, in some Middle Eastern countries, or the Westboro Baptist Church.
First of all, I would like to point out that all three of these examples come from completely different parts of the world, with completely different cultures and beliefs, yet they all carried out acts or horror. Secondly, I would like to point out that the vast majority of Muslims, Christians and other religious, ethnic or cultural groups, do not carry out acts such as these on a daily basis. In fact, I would even argue that many of them think they are just as horrific as you or I, regardless of what cultural background we have. The ones who do carry out such acts are groups or individuals within a larger group who have interpreted their beliefs in a certain, often very extreme, way.
Therefore, I do not think that we should accept other beliefs simply because the people who hold them come from a different culture than our own, as I don't necessarily think that the two have to be related. However, I do think that we should tolerate differences as we have been encouraged to do at UWC, but we should also challenge and question, especially intolerant behaviour. And the main point I was trying to get at in my previous paragraph is that I don't think that intolerance stems from cultural paradigms specifically. I think it's a combination of a variety of different influences, and for that reason I don't agree that we should blindly accept another person's point of view, simply because they have a different 'cultural background'. But similarly, I do not think that we need to impose our own views on others, or demand that there must exist moral absolutes.
I think the main issue with relativism is that it leads to the ignoring of the fact that many practices practiced by cultures all over the world, are not the product of collective agreement to engage in said practices. Instead they are often simply the products of whatever keeps he people in power in those cultures comfortable. The issue with cannibalism or women not driving is not that the women are not allowed to drive, it is that they want to drive, but are still not allowed to drive. If in the culture it is honorable to be eaten alive, it may sound awful, but if it is what the 'victim' wants, I see little reason to stop this practice. However often the issue is like in the middle east, where people are being oppressed, and not only oppressed but culturally conditioned to the extent that women in the middle east sometimes do not even want to drive, having been so 'brainwashed' by the culture there. This leads to the questions "How much cultural conditioning can happen before it's not okay". Now some people may say that any cultural conditioning is not okay, but unfortunately it is impossible to exist in society and not be culturally conditioned in some ways, and neither is it enough to say that only explicit cultural conditioning is bad. There must be a middle ground, a middle ground that can only exist if somehow just like Rachel said, universally agreed to moral absolutes are created to allow for the objective judgement of different scenarios all over the world to see if they are moral.
Alternatively, it must also be noticed that gradually people begin to rebel against their cultural conditioning. More and more women in the middle east are clamoring to drive, as time passes, people begin to notice that certain cultural norms are oppressive and abnormal when compared to the world around them. People begin to clamor for equality. While it is not practical for the world and us to question all cultures that have any questions raised against them, it is very important to question anything that suggests inequality, and secondly, it is important to question anything in general so as to not lapse into a position where injustice and oppression is tolerated simply due to a lack of questioning. "To improve is to change, to perfect is to change often." Humans grow and so does society, it cannot be held back by absolutes, it cannot be defined by statements. An absolute is an easy idea to discuss, but a dangerous concept to behold, an absolute begins a path down a slippery slope. Even an absolute made with good intentions, moral intentions, will at some point down the path oppress and obstruct society.Because an absolute is a form of cultural conditioning that is too explicit, too blatant to question. However even if I mention the fact that most dictators around the world have had absolutes, some may still find it difficult to accept the jump from "Hitler had moral absolutes" to 'moral absolutes always result in harm'. And the only way I can justify this is by suggesting that simply accepting any absolute, and unquestionable absolute, is to open the door to anything, to any sort of absolute. Because as soon as you accept an absolute, you accept the idea that you can draw lines in which absolute are acceptable, unquestionable. You accept that despite the fact any absolute is a restriction of freedom, be it a moral absolute for the better or a autocratic absolute for the worse.
Hmm... Your insight into relativism both startles and worries me Anahi, your ideas are both radical and dangerous. I would love if you could expand on your thoughts and possibly justify them. It would also really help if you could tell me where exactly these ideas originated/what inspired them. Thanks again for the insight!
I agree with Gianluca in that I think that we need people to constantly question for there to be any development in humanity as a whole. I think that he is right in saying that is the only way forward. Now the question asks if I think " we " are suited to be relativists, and at the risk of sounding elitist I say , we as students at UWC are somewhat suited to be so. You might be thinking , " is she insinuating that everyone else is not" , and my answer is , yes , sort of. I think that anyone who's grown up in an environment where there's no possibility for them to truly grasp the idea that there is something that transcends sex , gender or religion that makes us human , is apt to making more ' educated ' decisions. I think even people in UWC who supposedly ' understand; and even advocate this ideal are not really truly ready to behold the idea of relativism.
I have an analogy that;s a good starting point for where I want to go with this. Teenagers are infamous for at some point , believing that they're the beholders of the ultimate truth, they know ' everything', in their eyes , even more than their parents. This cause us as a whole to be seen as a little naive and ignorant to the real world. It is because of this sense of ' power' in our perceived knowledge that some kids make permanent mistakes. Because teens act this way, parents have to set down ground rules. These ground rules, for the most part are not ridiculous or limiting , but somewhat helpful.Without these rules our heightened sense of wisdom and the freedom to do what we want , would be in fact dangerous. And that’s what I think relativism is, dangerous. And like teenagers , people who do not see the world somewhat objectively need to be guarded from their own ‘ ignorance ‘( even if it is not their fault, this also does not make them “ lesser” etc)
I think that as much as I want to think the way Gianluca thinks, I find that ultimately his view is a little too general and slightly idealistic. I think relativism is good in theory because it advocates diversity which is one of the greatest wonders of the world, however it also advocates the destruction of it and more than that the destruction of each other. I know this sounds extremist but I think relativism, could be manipulated into letting anyone do whatever they want. As soon as people decide what’s right and wrong, there’s no way to control their actions. And I think people definitely need to be controlled in some way or another. I think the way forward is by making informed decisions and I do not think everyone is apt to do that at all. I think giving people the option to believe that they hold the absolute truth , is dangerous. And it is because of this that we must have absolutes.
I do not believe that there are any inherent absolutes rather absolutes that we need to come up with. Now, this does not mean that I do not believe in change. I do ,I think questioning is the way forward but I think the way I see it, any person whose ever done something for positive change has grasped the idea of EQUALITY. It is more than an understanding but a sort of empathy ? I think it goes beyond just being able to see it but being able to feel it. I think it is only then that people can make informed decisions for the better. Otherwise relativism is more of a weapon than anything else. I think it’s people’s ignorance to everyone else that really creates the issue for me. I have seen enough people be reluctant to change for others , or for the better , to believe that enough people would do it by choice. It is because of this that I think that relativism is delicate, and like a gun you do not give it to anyone who does not know how to shoot.
Wow, you have certainly laid out your view in a sincere manner Anahi. A couple of things--(1) your point in the last paragraph may be akin to the concept of Value Monism, and (2) I appreciate your firm stance that Relativism is dangerous.
Hm I see and almost agree with your thinking. But I think you make some dangerous assumptions plus I have some other thoughts, but we can start with the assumptions. First of all I never clarified my own position on relativism, and I guess you have taken my stance against absolutes to mean that I am a relativist, but that however is not the case. I agree wholeheartedly with many aspects of what Rachel discussed earlier. I do not think allowances can be made for certain things due to a lack of understanding of a difference in cultures, in fact I do not advocate the moral tolerance suggested by Relativism in any way. I suggest instead that all moral values of any kind should be questioned and questioned often. Also I am unclear to what picture exactly you have painted for Relativists but I will however still comment. You say 'at the risk of sounding elitist' and while that acknowledgment of your own presumptuousness does deflect some attention, it does not erase the fact that it is in fact an incredibly elitist statement. And here lies the problem.It does not matter by what you mean Relativist, or what you debate. But what you have done is dictate that certain groups of people may do something, while others may not. Now in certain situations, i can see where this is practical. Higher Philosophy students may pass judgement on the ethical nature of euthanasia, Higher Geography students may not. Different people from different environments are suited to different things.The acknowledgement of that is important in making the progression of society smoother. However you cannot state that as an absolute fact. You cannot proclaim that UWC students who are open-minded (by your definition) can be Relativists, while OFS students who are (for the sake of this example) self-righteous and pretentious, cannot. Such decisions, cannot be made absolute. Yes I agree with you completely, they should be made, that is how a lot of our society works, however they cannot be made absolute. What do I mean? Am I agreeing with you? Am I not? To answer this we must take a look at the very word 'Absolute'.
Something that is absolute is 'unconditional', so let me ask you this, when we look at current absolutes around us, are they truly absolute. Is a law absolute? To answer this we must ask if the law can ever be changed (no matter how difficult the process). If yes, it is not absolute. All of a sudden a lot of things that we previously may have considered absolute, are no longer absolute. Anahi's argument about teenagers and their parents. Parents set rules, guidelines, something that we can all agree are mostly beneficial. If presented with a reasonable enough argument, a logical enough argument that results in the betterment of everyone's situation as a whole, it must be argued that for said guideline to continue being beneficial, it must be adapted to allow for this beneficial change. If it is not adapted, if it is 'absolute' then it is no longer beneficial. Superficially we can follow this argument to show that absolutes are therefore not beneficial; as any parent who did not change a rule once they were shown that it had more benefit for their child was not acting with his/her best intentions and by enforcing an absolute, was being immoral. Here I can produce another argument for the questioning of moral values and rules.
In my delicate war against absolutes, the key to exposing the injustices of an absolute, the key to making an absolute not an absolute at all is questioning. Like I said earlier, think of a law, and now think if it can be changed (no matter how difficult and within the realm of possibility), it is not longer an absolute. So let us now focus on women in the middle east not being able to drive, we could say that as long as that law (or any law in fact) remains unquestioned, it is an absolute. So right now we can show that without the continuous questioning of laws and values, we allow the establishment of injustice through the existence of absolutes.
Well, Gianluca, I wouldn't call your war against absolutes "delicate" by any stretch of the imagination! However, if a law/moral claim remains unquestioned, I don't agree that it becomes an absolute. Absolutism presumes universality, and your example of the women in the Middle East would only pertain to that part of the world. Also sometimes an "absolute" rule is merely the law of a dictator or tyrant or those in power. Still, I like how you pull us back a step to contemplate the proper understanding of the concept of Absolute.
I think the key word in this question is 'differences'. In the context that UWCSEA uses the word, I think the implications of the word include (but are possibly not limited to) basic differences in routine, practices and beliefs to a certain extent. However, the lack of precise specification as to what exactly these 'differences' entail is where the advocacy of tolerance becomes dangerous because in some situations it can be synonymous with condonation of practices that are wrong on many levels. Relativists would argue that there is no objective 'wrong' practice, because culturally we have been conditioned to have different moral stances and therefore different practices, and we cannot assert that any one system of values is more legitimate than another. While on the surface this seems to be quite a humble view point (it basically translates to 'every opinion is valid') it in fact proposes a culture of shocking ignorance and almost a comfortable and convenient excuse for ignoring problems in our world.
This was an example brought up in class, and I think this would be a good place to use it again: Consider the practice of female genital mutilation. This practice is definitely a cultural practice, and to brush it off as a cultural practice that we cannot judge the moral worth of is to morally condone the practice of physically and psychologically traumatizing hundreds of females. This is a practice that clearly violates basic human rights. (And this could be another point of contention for relativists: are there any basic human rights that we are all entitled to? My answer is yes, because our biology and the fact that we are all biologically equal, being part of the same species, entails entitlement to the same opportunities as each other and a list of human rights - the UNDHR is the easiest to quote - is just an attempt to preserve the equality that we are all biologically entitled to by ensuring that everyone has equal and fair opportunities and is not treated on the basis of having anything but the same intrinsic worth as everyone else.) And the problem that relativists would have with morally condemning this practice is that it seems to directly insult a culture and the subsequent history that comes along with the practices it has, but condemning the moral worth of a practice, and insulting a culture can be mutually exclusive things. It is logically possible to respect the intrinsic worth of a particular culture but condemn practices it has if it violates basic human rights that every human is logically entitled to.
I do not think that just because we are UWCSEA students, we should be relativists. This is because it is possible to be tolerant of 'harmless' differences (a few examples of which I have listed above) while still condemning practices that obviously violate certain moral absolutes that exist. While UWCSEA does indeed preach and advocate tolerance, I do not think (or it least hope) it preaches or advocates relativism, because there are definite moral standards that our school considers absolute, maybe even on a subconscious level - I think (or, again, hope) you'd be hard pressed to find a UWC board member that urged respect of the practice of female genital mutilation or honor killing.
(continued. sorry, it was too long to be posted in one go) Another issue I have with relativism is that the whole theory of relativism is almost a funny paradox. It preaches to not preach to others. It asserts that one system of values cannot be considered worthier than the others, yet the very act of asserting that clearly means that relativists consider their thoughts worthier than other practices of judging moral worth. I personally find the hypocrisy (and pretentiousness) unbearable.
A problem with absolutism, of course, is that it is hard to come up with a very fundamental list of moral absolutes because there always seem to be exceptions to an absolute in which defying the moral standard the absolute advocates does not seem to be all that immoral, but I think Rachel's idea of bodily autonomy starts the list well. I think that not having moral absolutes in this world basically equates to letting everyone do whatever they want without any sort of repercussion or the idea of mutual human respect. It seems foolish to me.
(Furthermore, on a tangential note, I don't actually believe that we should base our idea of morality on what our institution suggests. I think that is up to us to figure out ourselves. I do like UWCSEA's values of embracing cultural differences, but I like it not because it is a UWC value but because it generally makes us more pleasant as people.)
In conclusion, I realize that was quite a scattered post, but to sum it up I basically believe that we should not be relativists because relativism as a theory is paradoxical and creates a culture of ignorance, and because I do not think UWCSEA preaches relativism. I consider myself an absolutist because I think there do exist moral absolutes in this world owing to our biological equality but it is problematic to come up with a list of these. And finally, our sense of morality should not be decided by what another institution or entity suggests it to be, so I also do not think we should be relativists because we should not just be what our school suggests. And finally, I like Jean-Luc's point about the need to constantly review and question the 'moral absolutes' that are in place - I think that is a reasonable way of ensuring that our moral absolutes are in fact moral. I think there are a few fundamental moral absolutes that are inherent, but a few that we may need to socially construct ourselves. The fact that they are socially constructed does not take away from their legitimacy, though, because the act of socially constructing moral absolutes is just a way to contextually figure out absolutes that preserve our equality - which is an inherent moral absolute.
Very well said Maddie! I really do think your view is leaning toward Value Pluralism (or even Value Monism) based on our basic human biology and ensuing human rights. In fact one "super value" that could be agreed on is the fact that all peoples everywhere want to live a fulfilling human life. How this is interpreted and embodied in social practices and even secondary values differs, but the basic value must be agreed upon. I really like your last sentence.
There’s a statement I heard a while ago that perfectly sums up my stance on this matter: “I’ll respect your opinion [or moral values/practices] provided your opinion doesn’t disrespect my existence”
ReplyDeleteAs someone who believes in the existence of moral absolutes, I see the word ‘tolerance’ as somewhat irrelevant to the discussion. However, I understand that it can be hard to impose this belief without it resulting in cultural hegemony, which is why it is important to establish that no culture is a flawless representation of morality, and thus its respective paradigm should in no way be exempt from criticism and scrutiny.
On a more prescriptive level I believe that moral absolutes should exist in a series of premises, which form the cornerstone against which all actions and cultural norms are scrutinised. At this point such a prescription resembles Kant’s Categorical Imperative, in that it is likely to run into similar problems when pragmatically applied to situations. In an attempt to evade this kind of problem, I propose that the premises of a universal moral code are not only set out but prioritised. For example, the premise of bodily autonomy being a universal right would not only condemn genital mutilation as immoral, but it could also prevail over the sanctity of (potential) life, which would allow women to have an abortion if they did not want to go through with a pregnancy, or excuse acts of self defence (or even something as simple as lying) to save oneself from sexual assault. Though an undeniably complex process, I believe that formulating and prioritising moral absolutes is essential to establishing a world that does not turn a blind eye to inequality, double standards and injustice in the name of tolerance for other cultures.
I really appreciate your take on the issue Rachel. Perhaps you have realized by now that your solution is something along the lines of Value Pluralism or moral convergence. I agree wholeheartedly with the last point you made.
DeleteLike Rachel, I will start with a quote, albeit of lesser repute. A common internet saying says "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid". That is a bit how I feel about relativism. While I appreciate the notion of respecting everyone's opinion and culture etc. there are limits. I choose not to attack the culture but their premises. I believe that any viewpoint that may be considered morally detestable arises from flawed premises. For example, someone may believe that it is okay to pay women less, premise being they are worth less than men. Same for races and religions. Obviously a flawed premise leading to a flawed practice.
ReplyDeleteHowever I believe I could almost be a proponent of moral relativism. I can respect any conclusion based on firm, reasonable premises. There are facts and there are premises. The facts are indisputable. The premises can change leading to the conclusion to change. Everyone has the right to observe and assess the premises of a moral claim and find either in favour or not. If many people find the same flaw, it is likely because the claim is flawed. On the other hand, if a moral claim can undergo a peer review with few objections it can be considered a valid view even if it conflicts with another equally valid view.
This has been a bit of a ramble so I will try and sum it up. I can not get on board with a blank check of approval/acceptance to any opinion simply because I am tolerant or because I respect cultures. There are more than one valid points of view on any issue. However, there are an infinite number of wrong ones as well. So, we cannot let opinions go unchallenged. But we also must avoid the fatal error of discarding contrasting views on the basis they don't align - they don't have to, they just have to work and make logical sense.
Mark, what you have said is exactly how the moral realists believe productive debate can occur. You seem to have thoroughly understood the idea that moral claims may be factual claims as well. This is why I believe you are not a moral relativist.
DeleteMy views in determining on what is wrong or right is simply thus: My views. While that may outright suggest that I completely subscribe to the theory or moral relativism, you would be wrong. Whilst I do agree to a majority of what the theory has to say, particularly that we should respect another person's culture and views as they are entitled to their own opinion, I do acknowledge that on a practical level, this is unacceptable. I can formulate my own opinion about another's actions as a result of his views and background, but I cannot, on my own, deem it moral or otherwise. However, I believe, that if one were to put forth a statement about another's actions, and henceforth find an overwhelming majority of individuals agreeing with that statement, then the statement can be given as true. As we can see, this has practical application in society, as different societies and cultures can come to a consensus that if a majority of them agreed that what another society does is wrong or immoral for the good of humans everywhere, they can take steps to rectify the situation.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I may not be an entire relativist, I would never call myself an absolutist. I believe for every absolute moral an absolutist claims exists, I will be able to provide a situation where this moral would never work. We should never lie. What if a serial killer asks me where my neighbor has gone? We should never intentionally kill an innocent person. What if by doing so, we save twenty other innocents' lives? And so on.
Therefore, I do not believe in the concept of moral absolutes, as morals can fluctuate in any given situation and over time as well, as we see from moral progress. I believe it is impossible to come up with a moral absolute that will hold in any context and withhold the might of time.
Shawn, you might then find the Value Pluralism approach more palatable. I wanted to express one point of concern based on your claim that if "enough" people (i.e. an overwhelming majority) agree that something is moral--that this can then become the Truth? Remember that the majority of the European/American world at one time believed that Slavery was right. Yet none of us can support the truth of this.
DeleteI, like Shawn, definitely do not believe that there is such a thing as moral absolutism, and that may partly be due to the fact that I have grown up as a student at UWC from the age of 4. Although we have been taught to be tolerant of cultural differences from a very young age, I firmly believe that "we should not tolerate intolerance". I think that this statement basically sums up a lot of what has already been said, both on the above comments and in class, such as in Shawn's and Gianluca's debate on the Westboro Baptist Church when Shawn said that they try to impose their ideologies onto other people, which completely contradicts the whole theory of relativism. Therefore, why should we accept it?
ReplyDeleteOf course one could claim that people may have subjective views on what being 'intolerant' entails, but I would argue that in most, if not all cases, it is fairly easy to judge whether an act is in fact tolerant or intolerant. I'm not trying to say that we should all live in dull, neutral societies, but I do think that in many cases the most extremist groups are the ones that are intolerant to different views, and as a result carry out acts that I think most of us would deem morally wrong. Some examples of this are Anders Breivik shooting 77 people in Norway, the banning of women from driving, as well as basic education, in some Middle Eastern countries, or the Westboro Baptist Church.
First of all, I would like to point out that all three of these examples come from completely different parts of the world, with completely different cultures and beliefs, yet they all carried out acts or horror. Secondly, I would like to point out that the vast majority of Muslims, Christians and other religious, ethnic or cultural groups, do not carry out acts such as these on a daily basis. In fact, I would even argue that many of them think they are just as horrific as you or I, regardless of what cultural background we have. The ones who do carry out such acts are groups or individuals within a larger group who have interpreted their beliefs in a certain, often very extreme, way.
Therefore, I do not think that we should accept other beliefs simply because the people who hold them come from a different culture than our own, as I don't necessarily think that the two have to be related. However, I do think that we should tolerate differences as we have been encouraged to do at UWC, but we should also challenge and question, especially intolerant behaviour. And the main point I was trying to get at in my previous paragraph is that I don't think that intolerance stems from cultural paradigms specifically. I think it's a combination of a variety of different influences, and for that reason I don't agree that we should blindly accept another person's point of view, simply because they have a different 'cultural background'. But similarly, I do not think that we need to impose our own views on others, or demand that there must exist moral absolutes.
(sorry, that last bit was a bit repetitive)
I think the main issue with relativism is that it leads to the ignoring of the fact that many practices practiced by cultures all over the world, are not the product of collective agreement to engage in said practices. Instead they are often simply the products of whatever keeps he people in power in those cultures comfortable. The issue with cannibalism or women not driving is not that the women are not allowed to drive, it is that they want to drive, but are still not allowed to drive. If in the culture it is honorable to be eaten alive, it may sound awful, but if it is what the 'victim' wants, I see little reason to stop this practice. However often the issue is like in the middle east, where people are being oppressed, and not only oppressed but culturally conditioned to the extent that women in the middle east sometimes do not even want to drive, having been so 'brainwashed' by the culture there. This leads to the questions "How much cultural conditioning can happen before it's not okay". Now some people may say that any cultural conditioning is not okay, but unfortunately it is impossible to exist in society and not be culturally conditioned in some ways, and neither is it enough to say that only explicit cultural conditioning is bad. There must be a middle ground, a middle ground that can only exist if somehow just like Rachel said, universally agreed to moral absolutes are created to allow for the objective judgement of different scenarios all over the world to see if they are moral.
ReplyDeleteAlternatively, it must also be noticed that gradually people begin to rebel against their cultural conditioning. More and more women in the middle east are clamoring to drive, as time passes, people begin to notice that certain cultural norms are oppressive and abnormal when compared to the world around them. People begin to clamor for equality. While it is not practical for the world and us to question all cultures that have any questions raised against them, it is very important to question anything that suggests inequality, and secondly, it is important to question anything in general so as to not lapse into a position where injustice and oppression is tolerated simply due to a lack of questioning. "To improve is to change, to perfect is to change often." Humans grow and so does society, it cannot be held back by absolutes, it cannot be defined by statements. An absolute is an easy idea to discuss, but a dangerous concept to behold, an absolute begins a path down a slippery slope. Even an absolute made with good intentions, moral intentions, will at some point down the path oppress and obstruct society.Because an absolute is a form of cultural conditioning that is too explicit, too blatant to question. However even if I mention the fact that most dictators around the world have had absolutes, some may still find it difficult to accept the jump from "Hitler had moral absolutes" to 'moral absolutes always result in harm'. And the only way I can justify this is by suggesting that simply accepting any absolute, and unquestionable absolute, is to open the door to anything, to any sort of absolute. Because as soon as you accept an absolute, you accept the idea that you can draw lines in which absolute are acceptable, unquestionable. You accept that despite the fact any absolute is a restriction of freedom, be it a moral absolute for the better or a autocratic absolute for the worse.
z
ReplyDeleteHmm... Your insight into relativism both startles and worries me Anahi, your ideas are both radical and dangerous. I would love if you could expand on your thoughts and possibly justify them. It would also really help if you could tell me where exactly these ideas originated/what inspired them. Thanks again for the insight!
DeleteHey Gianluca: cut down on the teasing! Anahi was thinking so deeply she fell asleep!
Delete
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gianluca in that I think that we need people to constantly question for there to be any development in humanity as a whole. I think that he is right in saying that is the only way forward. Now the question asks if I think " we " are suited to be relativists, and at the risk of sounding elitist I say , we as students at UWC are somewhat suited to be so. You might be thinking , " is she insinuating that everyone else is not" , and my answer is , yes , sort of. I think that anyone who's grown up in an environment where there's no possibility for them to truly grasp the idea that there is something that transcends sex , gender or religion that makes us human , is apt to making more ' educated ' decisions. I think even people in UWC who supposedly ' understand; and even advocate this ideal are not really truly ready to behold the idea of relativism.
I have an analogy that;s a good starting point for where I want to go with this. Teenagers are infamous for at some point , believing that they're the beholders of the ultimate truth, they know ' everything', in their eyes , even more than their parents. This cause us as a whole to be seen as a little naive and ignorant to the real world. It is because of this sense of ' power' in our perceived knowledge that some kids make permanent mistakes. Because teens act this way, parents have to set down ground rules. These ground rules, for the most part are not ridiculous or limiting , but somewhat helpful.Without these rules our heightened sense of wisdom and the freedom to do what we want , would be in fact dangerous. And that’s what I think relativism is, dangerous. And like teenagers , people who do not see the world somewhat objectively need to be guarded from their own ‘ ignorance ‘( even if it is not their fault, this also does not make them “ lesser” etc)
I think that as much as I want to think the way Gianluca thinks, I find that ultimately his view is a little too general and slightly idealistic. I think relativism is good in theory because it advocates diversity which is one of the greatest wonders of the world, however it also advocates the destruction of it and more than that the destruction of each other. I know this sounds extremist but I think relativism, could be manipulated into letting anyone do whatever they want. As soon as people decide what’s right and wrong, there’s no way to control their actions. And I think people definitely need to be controlled in some way or another. I think the way forward is by making informed decisions and I do not think everyone is apt to do that at all. I think giving people the option to believe that they hold the absolute truth , is dangerous. And it is because of this that we must have absolutes.
I do not believe that there are any inherent absolutes rather absolutes that we need to come up with. Now, this does not mean that I do not believe in change. I do ,I think questioning is the way forward but I think the way I see it, any person whose ever done something for positive change has grasped the idea of EQUALITY. It is more than an understanding but a sort of empathy ? I think it goes beyond just being able to see it but being able to feel it. I think it is only then that people can make informed decisions for the better. Otherwise relativism is more of a weapon than anything else. I think it’s people’s ignorance to everyone else that really creates the issue for me. I have seen enough people be reluctant to change for others , or for the better , to believe that enough people would do it by choice. It is because of this that I think that relativism is delicate, and like a gun you do not give it to anyone who does not know how to shoot.
Wow, you have certainly laid out your view in a sincere manner Anahi. A couple of things--(1) your point in the last paragraph may be akin to the concept of Value Monism, and (2) I appreciate your firm stance that Relativism is dangerous.
DeleteHm I see and almost agree with your thinking. But I think you make some dangerous assumptions plus I have some other thoughts, but we can start with the assumptions. First of all I never clarified my own position on relativism, and I guess you have taken my stance against absolutes to mean that I am a relativist, but that however is not the case. I agree wholeheartedly with many aspects of what Rachel discussed earlier. I do not think allowances can be made for certain things due to a lack of understanding of a difference in cultures, in fact I do not advocate the moral tolerance suggested by Relativism in any way. I suggest instead that all moral values of any kind should be questioned and questioned often. Also I am unclear to what picture exactly you have painted for Relativists but I will however still comment. You say 'at the risk of sounding elitist' and while that acknowledgment of your own presumptuousness does deflect some attention, it does not erase the fact that it is in fact an incredibly elitist statement. And here lies the problem.It does not matter by what you mean Relativist, or what you debate. But what you have done is dictate that certain groups of people may do something, while others may not. Now in certain situations, i can see where this is practical. Higher Philosophy students may pass judgement on the ethical nature of euthanasia, Higher Geography students may not. Different people from different environments are suited to different things.The acknowledgement of that is important in making the progression of society smoother. However you cannot state that as an absolute fact. You cannot proclaim that UWC students who are open-minded (by your definition) can be Relativists, while OFS students who are (for the sake of this example) self-righteous and pretentious, cannot. Such decisions, cannot be made absolute. Yes I agree with you completely, they should be made, that is how a lot of our society works, however they cannot be made absolute. What do I mean? Am I agreeing with you? Am I not? To answer this we must take a look at the very word 'Absolute'.
ReplyDeleteSomething that is absolute is 'unconditional', so let me ask you this, when we look at current absolutes around us, are they truly absolute. Is a law absolute? To answer this we must ask if the law can ever be changed (no matter how difficult the process). If yes, it is not absolute. All of a sudden a lot of things that we previously may have considered absolute, are no longer absolute. Anahi's argument about teenagers and their parents. Parents set rules, guidelines, something that we can all agree are mostly beneficial. If presented with a reasonable enough argument, a logical enough argument that results in the betterment of everyone's situation as a whole, it must be argued that for said guideline to continue being beneficial, it must be adapted to allow for this beneficial change. If it is not adapted, if it is 'absolute' then it is no longer beneficial. Superficially we can follow this argument to show that absolutes are therefore not beneficial; as any parent who did not change a rule once they were shown that it had more benefit for their child was not acting with his/her best intentions and by enforcing an absolute, was being immoral. Here I can produce another argument for the questioning of moral values and rules.
In my delicate war against absolutes, the key to exposing the injustices of an absolute, the key to making an absolute not an absolute at all is questioning. Like I said earlier, think of a law, and now think if it can be changed (no matter how difficult and within the realm of possibility), it is not longer an absolute. So let us now focus on women in the middle east not being able to drive, we could say that as long as that law (or any law in fact) remains unquestioned, it is an absolute. So right now we can show that without the continuous questioning of laws and values, we allow the establishment of injustice through the existence of absolutes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWell, Gianluca, I wouldn't call your war against absolutes "delicate" by any stretch of the imagination! However, if a law/moral claim remains unquestioned, I don't agree that it becomes an absolute. Absolutism presumes universality, and your example of the women in the Middle East would only pertain to that part of the world. Also sometimes an "absolute" rule is merely the law of a dictator or tyrant or those in power. Still, I like how you pull us back a step to contemplate the proper understanding of the concept of Absolute.
ReplyDeleteI think the key word in this question is 'differences'. In the context that UWCSEA uses the word, I think the implications of the word include (but are possibly not limited to) basic differences in routine, practices and beliefs to a certain extent. However, the lack of precise specification as to what exactly these 'differences' entail is where the advocacy of tolerance becomes dangerous because in some situations it can be synonymous with condonation of practices that are wrong on many levels. Relativists would argue that there is no objective 'wrong' practice, because culturally we have been conditioned to have different moral stances and therefore different practices, and we cannot assert that any one system of values is more legitimate than another. While on the surface this seems to be quite a humble view point (it basically translates to 'every opinion is valid') it in fact proposes a culture of shocking ignorance and almost a comfortable and convenient excuse for ignoring problems in our world.
ReplyDeleteThis was an example brought up in class, and I think this would be a good place to use it again: Consider the practice of female genital mutilation. This practice is definitely a cultural practice, and to brush it off as a cultural practice that we cannot judge the moral worth of is to morally condone the practice of physically and psychologically traumatizing hundreds of females. This is a practice that clearly violates basic human rights. (And this could be another point of contention for relativists: are there any basic human rights that we are all entitled to? My answer is yes, because our biology and the fact that we are all biologically equal, being part of the same species, entails entitlement to the same opportunities as each other and a list of human rights - the UNDHR is the easiest to quote - is just an attempt to preserve the equality that we are all biologically entitled to by ensuring that everyone has equal and fair opportunities and is not treated on the basis of having anything but the same intrinsic worth as everyone else.) And the problem that relativists would have with morally condemning this practice is that it seems to directly insult a culture and the subsequent history that comes along with the practices it has, but condemning the moral worth of a practice, and insulting a culture can be mutually exclusive things. It is logically possible to respect the intrinsic worth of a particular culture but condemn practices it has if it violates basic human rights that every human is logically entitled to.
I do not think that just because we are UWCSEA students, we should be relativists. This is because it is possible to be tolerant of 'harmless' differences (a few examples of which I have listed above) while still condemning practices that obviously violate certain moral absolutes that exist. While UWCSEA does indeed preach and advocate tolerance, I do not think (or it least hope) it preaches or advocates relativism, because there are definite moral standards that our school considers absolute, maybe even on a subconscious level - I think (or, again, hope) you'd be hard pressed to find a UWC board member that urged respect of the practice of female genital mutilation or honor killing.
(continued. sorry, it was too long to be posted in one go)
DeleteAnother issue I have with relativism is that the whole theory of relativism is almost a funny paradox. It preaches to not preach to others. It asserts that one system of values cannot be considered worthier than the others, yet the very act of asserting that clearly means that relativists consider their thoughts worthier than other practices of judging moral worth. I personally find the hypocrisy (and pretentiousness) unbearable.
A problem with absolutism, of course, is that it is hard to come up with a very fundamental list of moral absolutes because there always seem to be exceptions to an absolute in which defying the moral standard the absolute advocates does not seem to be all that immoral, but I think Rachel's idea of bodily autonomy starts the list well. I think that not having moral absolutes in this world basically equates to letting everyone do whatever they want without any sort of repercussion or the idea of mutual human respect. It seems foolish to me.
(Furthermore, on a tangential note, I don't actually believe that we should base our idea of morality on what our institution suggests. I think that is up to us to figure out ourselves. I do like UWCSEA's values of embracing cultural differences, but I like it not because it is a UWC value but because it generally makes us more pleasant as people.)
In conclusion, I realize that was quite a scattered post, but to sum it up I basically believe that we should not be relativists because relativism as a theory is paradoxical and creates a culture of ignorance, and because I do not think UWCSEA preaches relativism. I consider myself an absolutist because I think there do exist moral absolutes in this world owing to our biological equality but it is problematic to come up with a list of these. And finally, our sense of morality should not be decided by what another institution or entity suggests it to be, so I also do not think we should be relativists because we should not just be what our school suggests. And finally, I like Jean-Luc's point about the need to constantly review and question the 'moral absolutes' that are in place - I think that is a reasonable way of ensuring that our moral absolutes are in fact moral. I think there are a few fundamental moral absolutes that are inherent, but a few that we may need to socially construct ourselves. The fact that they are socially constructed does not take away from their legitimacy, though, because the act of socially constructing moral absolutes is just a way to contextually figure out absolutes that preserve our equality - which is an inherent moral absolute.
Very well said Maddie! I really do think your view is leaning toward Value Pluralism (or even Value Monism) based on our basic human biology and ensuing human rights. In fact one "super value" that could be agreed on is the fact that all peoples everywhere want to live a fulfilling human life. How this is interpreted and embodied in social practices and even secondary values differs, but the basic value must be agreed upon. I really like your last sentence.
ReplyDelete