Moral relativism
(→Other criticism: Per discussion.) |
(→Other criticism: Trying to avoid Godwin's law) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
==Other criticism== | ==Other criticism== | ||
| − | Another criticism of moral relativism is that its promoters do not actually believe it, and by asking an inconvenient question one could get such a promoter to reveal that she believes in some absolute morals. For example, if you were to approach a moral relativist and suggest that | + | Another criticism of moral relativism is that its promoters do not actually believe it, and by asking an inconvenient question one could get such a promoter to reveal that she believes in some absolute morals. For example, if you were to approach a moral relativist and suggest that it was okay, within the 18th century, for blacks to be worked to death (since it was more economic to simply import more) separated at whim from their wives/husbands/children/parents and generally treated [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattel_slavery as property] by dint of their skin colour, you should probably get out of his reach as speedily as convenient, for, beyond doubt, [[Inclusive language#Neologisms|xe]] would endeavor to knock you down.<ref>Apologies to Edgar Allan Poe. And Garland.</ref> |
In its purest form, moral relativism is an example of [[proving too much]]; the principle that "all moral frameworks are relative" being, itself, an absolute moral framework. In practice, though, it tends to be "All moral frameworks except mine are relative" which stands up to scrutiny much better. | In its purest form, moral relativism is an example of [[proving too much]]; the principle that "all moral frameworks are relative" being, itself, an absolute moral framework. In practice, though, it tends to be "All moral frameworks except mine are relative" which stands up to scrutiny much better. | ||
Revision as of 17:24, 19 January 2012
| Deep thinking |
| Major disciplines |
| Philosophy articles |
| Common applications |
Moral relativism is a term for the philosophical perspective that morality is not absolute, based on the observation that moral codes vary greatly between groups and individuals. This is directly opposed to "universal morality" belief systems such as Christianity, which tend to move from "There is a Good TruthTM for everyone, everywhere and everywhen" to "what I say is the Good TruthTM is the Good TruthTM for everyone, everywhere and everywhen."
Theists, specifically American Christian Fundamentalists, generally decry moral relativism, because it asserts that
- they, and not a single God, created the laws they live by
- they do not have an inherent, basic right to tell others how to live
- there is no justification for declaring gay activities, premarital sex, abortion, and eating nachos on Thursday universally "wrong", since such proscriptions are found only in select religions.
Contents |
Descriptive vs. normative relativism
There are two branches of moral relativism, broadly speaking. One is "normative relativism," which is the way that the general phrase "moral relativism" is most often used (and abused). Normative relativism (sometimes called "meta-ethical moral relativism") rejects both the possibility and desirability of an absolute morality, holding that morality is and should be relative to individuals, groups, etc. Descriptive relativism, on the other hand, merely denotes the observation that an absolute moral system does not exist and has not been practiced throughout human history. In brief, descriptive relativism corresponds to the "is" of Hume's law and normative relativism to the "ought." There are philosophers who are descriptive relativists in that they reject the existence of absolute morality, but argue that some standard, universal system of morality and ethics should be constructed (e.g. J.L. Mackie). It is common for this position to be straw manned as "moral relativism."
Religious moral relativism
It is interesting to note that religious values change with time and culture as well. Consider the question of slavery. Both the Old and New Testaments have specific instructions for both slaves and slave-holders, and never condemn the practice. Christian leaders used to have no qualms about using the Bible to support such positions. Nowadays, however, only Christian dominionists would dare voice such an attitude.
Other criticism
Another criticism of moral relativism is that its promoters do not actually believe it, and by asking an inconvenient question one could get such a promoter to reveal that she believes in some absolute morals. For example, if you were to approach a moral relativist and suggest that it was okay, within the 18th century, for blacks to be worked to death (since it was more economic to simply import more) separated at whim from their wives/husbands/children/parents and generally treated as property by dint of their skin colour, you should probably get out of his reach as speedily as convenient, for, beyond doubt, xe would endeavor to knock you down.[1]
In its purest form, moral relativism is an example of proving too much; the principle that "all moral frameworks are relative" being, itself, an absolute moral framework. In practice, though, it tends to be "All moral frameworks except mine are relative" which stands up to scrutiny much better.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Apologies to Edgar Allan Poe. And Garland.