Relative and Absolute
Jun. 12th, 2002 02:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynI should probably pick a point when I have more time than I do right now, but, eh, what the heck.
Some recent comments on my entry on moral equivalence, along with Postvixen’s recent opus, prompted me to get around to this commentary. I believe that certain moral standards are ‘absolute’, or as nearly so as to make no bones about the difference, while other moral standards are ‘relative’, or tied to the particular cultures and circumstances of those involved. Some examples:
One novel I read, Prisoner of Conscience, featured a culture where it was not merely socially acceptable to torture prisoners, but, in fact, the civic duty of the protagonist to do so. My sense was that the author tried to craft sympathy for her protagonist, who was a torturer and a slave-master, by putting him into a society where the people around him were even more reprehensible. All right, so he has people technologically enslaved to his service. But he’s nice to them. And, really, society ‘made’ him keep those slaves. He doesn’t have a choice in it. Honest. (Apologies to those who have read the books and accuse me of gross oversimplification. Of which I am guilty).
My conclusion, on finishing the two books of the series, was that the protagonist was a monster. And it didn’t matter if he was less of a monster than the people around him. It didn’t even matter that he was the only influential champion of good causes in the novels. He was still a monster. The lesser of two evils is still evil. This is a moral absolute of my world. It doesn’t matter that the slavery was legal and commonplace in the antebellum South or in ancient Rome. It was still wrong. Putting a man in chains and forcing him into servitude under penalty of death just because you can--not because of anything he’s done—is always wrong. Killing a woman because she says a word you don’t like, or don’t want her to say, is always wrong. Chopping off your servant’s hand because you had a bad day at work is always wrong. It doesn’t matter if your culture, religion, laws, or pet rock all say that this behavior is perfectly acceptable. It’s still wrong. As Don Henley sings, “Evil is still evil, in anybody’s name.”
You may notice above that I presented specific situations, as opposed to broad categories of actions, like “Stealing is wrong” or “Murder is wrong.” (“Murder is wrong” is way more problematic than you’d think, since it begs the question of “What is murder?” The most common definition of “murder” is “the unlawful killing of one human by another.” Posit a sufficiently immoral government, and you can easily get moral murders.) That’s one way that “relativity” creeps into even my “absolutist” argument. Circumstances influence the rightness or wrongness of an action. Enslaving a man just because you can is wrong. But making a convicted criminal do forced labor isn’t necessarily wrong.
All this said, I also think there are “relative” points of morality, which are heavily dependent on culture, religion, etc., and not just on the specific circumstance. For example, in my previous entry, I gave a hypothetical example of a “twelve year-old girl who thinks she's in love with her thirty-something neighbor and consents to have sex with him.” I went on to say that the neighbor in this story had committed a “reprehensible act.” But, in my mind, that’s contingent on the circumstance of my society. Two thousand years ago, would I still say that the man’s actions were reprehensible? What if he married her first? What if they lived in a society where older men were given the duty of introducing adolescents to sexual behavior, and he was executing this duty with compassion, care, and love? Am I still sure that he is wrong?
I will condemn the society that embraces human sacrifice, whatever their reasons or motives may be. But I’m less convinced that, say, the sexual morals of my own culture are the only correct ones. But that does not mean that my culture’s sexual morals are irrelevant to anyone who doesn’t like them. I may not believe that monogamous relationships are the only proper model. But it would be immoral for me to seduce someone who was involved in a monogamous relationship with another person.
I think I’m wandering off topic. I’ll just post this now and get to work. If I have anything else to add I can always do so later.
Some recent comments on my entry on moral equivalence, along with Postvixen’s recent opus, prompted me to get around to this commentary. I believe that certain moral standards are ‘absolute’, or as nearly so as to make no bones about the difference, while other moral standards are ‘relative’, or tied to the particular cultures and circumstances of those involved. Some examples:
One novel I read, Prisoner of Conscience, featured a culture where it was not merely socially acceptable to torture prisoners, but, in fact, the civic duty of the protagonist to do so. My sense was that the author tried to craft sympathy for her protagonist, who was a torturer and a slave-master, by putting him into a society where the people around him were even more reprehensible. All right, so he has people technologically enslaved to his service. But he’s nice to them. And, really, society ‘made’ him keep those slaves. He doesn’t have a choice in it. Honest. (Apologies to those who have read the books and accuse me of gross oversimplification. Of which I am guilty).
My conclusion, on finishing the two books of the series, was that the protagonist was a monster. And it didn’t matter if he was less of a monster than the people around him. It didn’t even matter that he was the only influential champion of good causes in the novels. He was still a monster. The lesser of two evils is still evil. This is a moral absolute of my world. It doesn’t matter that the slavery was legal and commonplace in the antebellum South or in ancient Rome. It was still wrong. Putting a man in chains and forcing him into servitude under penalty of death just because you can--not because of anything he’s done—is always wrong. Killing a woman because she says a word you don’t like, or don’t want her to say, is always wrong. Chopping off your servant’s hand because you had a bad day at work is always wrong. It doesn’t matter if your culture, religion, laws, or pet rock all say that this behavior is perfectly acceptable. It’s still wrong. As Don Henley sings, “Evil is still evil, in anybody’s name.”
You may notice above that I presented specific situations, as opposed to broad categories of actions, like “Stealing is wrong” or “Murder is wrong.” (“Murder is wrong” is way more problematic than you’d think, since it begs the question of “What is murder?” The most common definition of “murder” is “the unlawful killing of one human by another.” Posit a sufficiently immoral government, and you can easily get moral murders.) That’s one way that “relativity” creeps into even my “absolutist” argument. Circumstances influence the rightness or wrongness of an action. Enslaving a man just because you can is wrong. But making a convicted criminal do forced labor isn’t necessarily wrong.
All this said, I also think there are “relative” points of morality, which are heavily dependent on culture, religion, etc., and not just on the specific circumstance. For example, in my previous entry, I gave a hypothetical example of a “twelve year-old girl who thinks she's in love with her thirty-something neighbor and consents to have sex with him.” I went on to say that the neighbor in this story had committed a “reprehensible act.” But, in my mind, that’s contingent on the circumstance of my society. Two thousand years ago, would I still say that the man’s actions were reprehensible? What if he married her first? What if they lived in a society where older men were given the duty of introducing adolescents to sexual behavior, and he was executing this duty with compassion, care, and love? Am I still sure that he is wrong?
I will condemn the society that embraces human sacrifice, whatever their reasons or motives may be. But I’m less convinced that, say, the sexual morals of my own culture are the only correct ones. But that does not mean that my culture’s sexual morals are irrelevant to anyone who doesn’t like them. I may not believe that monogamous relationships are the only proper model. But it would be immoral for me to seduce someone who was involved in a monogamous relationship with another person.
I think I’m wandering off topic. I’ll just post this now and get to work. If I have anything else to add I can always do so later.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Insight
Re: Insight
Date: 2002-06-13 05:21 am (UTC)Re: Insight
Date: 2002-06-13 09:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-06-13 06:31 am (UTC)1. a partial comprehension of a totally absolute and objective moral standard that, if you knew it in its entirety without "fuzziness" or reduction to generalities, would cover all possible scenarios;
...or...
2. a totally relative moral standard that, because you are a social being, includes certain social norms that are sufficiently broadly accepted that for all intents and purposes they are "absolute."
no subject
You hinted that my own treatment of "relativism" was too broad. But in fact, we were and are talking about two completely different arenas: moral relativism and factual relativism. There's a third area, one of "legal relativism" which wants to have a foot in morals and one in facts but often winds up falling into the stretch between, and getting wet.
I don't think that science can dictate morals. At all. I do think that factual information, which science is very good at providing, can inform moral decisions. But it doesn't MAKE those decisions.
Thinking about Prester_Scott's comments below--I'd say that it's all fuzzy. The ones you refer to as "absolutes"--and they feel that way to me also--are the ones common to almost all cultures. These are the ones that "every reasonable person would say were good versus bad behavior".
The subtlety here is that "almost" in "almost all cultures". The bizarre thing about the culture of feudal Japan was that even the general populace believed in the "rightness" of their very strange (to us) ideas, some of which are exactly contrary to almost anyone else's notions of right and wrong.
Attempting to impose our ideas about murder and slavery upon those folks would have about the same results as trying to intercede in a domestic argument--both sides turn on you.
I have, for decades, considered feudal Japan (up to about 1600) as an opportunity to study a truly alien intelligence.
But despite all of that, I "make no bones" about it, and agree with your statements.
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2003-04-21 04:42 pm (UTC)I must apologize. I think the fact that you titled your entry "Cultural Relativism" set me off on the wrong foot -- since what I discussed in this entry was primarily cultural differences in morality. And one of those leaving comments on your entry went off down the "moral relativism" tangent, too. But you are certainly correct: Dawkins did not address morality at all. Sorry 'bout that.
Thanks for coming to read my entry anyway, though. :)
Re:
Date: 2003-04-21 04:56 pm (UTC)The focus was on cultural beliefs versus information derived from the scientific method. It just now strikes me that science cannot be a "culture bias" in the normal sense, as it crosses all cultural barriers. When you stop seeing the universe through the filter of your culturally-ingrained beliefs, you tend to see the same thing. That is the really significant part.
If science in every country tended toward its own "truth", it would not be so useful. Or so valid. When something like this did happen, as in the Soviet Union, science quickly reverted to normal once the state-culture-mandated Lysenkoism nonsense was no longer enforced under pain of death.
And you've reminded me of many pleasant exchanges in my own journal; I'm pleased to return a bit of this to you. ]:-)
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2003-04-21 07:01 pm (UTC)I was a little disappointed at the time that I made this entry that it didn't generate more discussion. Of course, look at me, I didn't even answer Scott's question. Tsk on me. Anyway, it's nice to know someone else actually read it now. :)
Re:
Date: 2003-04-21 07:36 pm (UTC)Imagine a strange variant of the "journal" concept wherein you just recorded your own thoughts as they strike you. How peculiar!
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2003-04-21 07:49 pm (UTC)Imagine a strange variant of the "journal" concept wherein you just recorded your own thoughts as they strike you. How peculiar!
Where do you come up with this stuff? Who would do something like that? Mindboggling.