Moral relativism and liberalism

[Yerda]

I've just started reading The Moral Landscape (Sam Harris). He has a pop early on at educated, secular liberals for subscribing to moral relativism. It's something I come across online in blogs and articles from time to time. For instance, it is sometimes said that liberals will refuse to condemn female genital mutilation on the grounds that it could be morally sound in some other culture. Or that liberals will defend the right of Muslim men in certain countries to force women to wear the burka.

Are you all moral relativists?

Are some liberals afraid to express certainty on moral issues?

Fyi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/

Discuss?

 

[Augustus]

It should be noted that some people use moral relativism to mean 'refuses to condemn any behaviour' and others use it to mean 'morality is a social construct'.

You can be a moral relativist and still strongly condemn FGM and the likes. You can be a moral relativist and still consider certain moral systems to be preferable to others despite not considering them to have any 'objective' basis.

Personally I believe there the idea that there is an 'objective' morality that corresponds to modern humanism to be wildly irrational and in contradiction to all available evidence. That doesn't mean I consider the morality of IS to be of equal worth though.

What is moral is also very much dependent on environment and circumstance.

There is no reason that a moral system has to be objectively true for it to be subjectively preferable or societally beneficial.

 

[sun rise]

I've just started reading The Moral Landscape (Sam Harris). He has a pop early on at educated, secular liberals for subscribing to moral relativism. It's something I come across online in blogs and articles from time to time. For instance, it is sometimes said that liberals will refuse to condemn female genital mutilation on the grounds that it could be morally sound in some other culture. Or that liberals will defend the right of Muslim men in certain countries to force women to wear the burka.

Are you all moral relativists?

Are some liberals afraid to express certainty on moral issues?

Fyi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/

Discuss?

'Sometimes said'? By whom? I know of no support on the left for mandatory burka and FGM. Do you have any proof?

Morality can be tricky in certain areas. If a Christian or Jew reads the 10 Commandments as the essence of morality, then killing is ipso facto immoral because God commanded us not to kill. But Krishna in the Gita told Arjuna to fight and kill his relatives so Hinduism has a different morality than Christianity and Judaism. But many Christians and Jews feel it is moral to fight for one's country and kill the enemy. And many in India subscribe to ahimsa which is a morality of not doing harm. I recognize the human capacity for rationalization which can, of course, turn black in to white when it comes to interpreting scriptures. But the text itself is to me pretty clear.

This leads me to believe that there are moral absolutes in how one approaches a situation but that one's actions are situationally determined. To take an obvious situation - one should obey the law. But if I'm poor and steal food to help a mother and child who is at risk of dying from hunger and if I plead guilty to the crime, I would say my actions were moral because of my motive to help others and acceptance of responsibility for my actions.

 

[JRMcC]

I've just started reading The Moral Landscape (Sam Harris). He has a pop early on at educated, secular liberals for subscribing to moral relativism. It's something I come across online in blogs and articles from time to time. For instance, it is sometimes said that liberals will refuse to condemn female genital mutilation on the grounds that it could be morally sound in some other culture. Or that liberals will defend the right of Muslim men in certain countries to force women to wear the burka.

Are you all moral relativists?

Are some liberals afraid to express certainty on moral issues?

Fyi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/

Discuss?

You're poll left out 'don't know'! I can't vote.

 

[Father Heathen]

Even if there is no "absolute moral truth", some forms of morality are unquestionably superior to others. I think the best forms of morality are those based on reason and compassion; something that can be substantiated and demonstrated.

The notion that all cultures are equal and above reproach is beyond asinine, especially when it comes to norms of irrational cruelty.

 

[That one dude...]

If I agree, does that mean I'm for moral relativism?

 

[icehorse]

From the OP:

Are some liberals afraid to express certainty on moral issues?

I would say that when Ben Affleck was on the Bill Maher show several months ago he provided an example of just such a liberal. In this case he claimed that criticism of Islam was racist.

When Catholic Bishops criticized Salman Rushdie for his book "Satanic Verses" we see the same.

When Hillary Clinton gives support to UN 16/18 - in support of an international blasphemy law - we see it again...

 

[Baladas]

Even if there is no "absolute moral truth", some forms of morality are unquestionably superior to others. I think the best forms of morality are those based on reason and compassion; something that can be substantiated and demonstrated.

The notion that all cultures are equal and above reproach is beyond asinine, especially when it comes to norms of irrational cruelty.

This is how I feel as well.
I've actually been challenged, and accused as intolerant before for condemning someone's pro stance on racial segregation.

It's completely absurd.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Moral choices affect other people, but you will never care for everyone equally. Its like other limits such as the distance you can walk or how far away you can hear. Each person lives in multiple circles of influence, and they care more about some circles than others. The people nearest to you are the ones you care about the most, and your moral choices affect them most. It doesn't make sense for you to set moral rules for people that you don't care about. So no matter how moral your words are if you don't care about the person then your moral sense becomes inappropriate or self serving. I do not mean that there are no common morals or that society doesn't need standards. It does, but morality is a practice just like law is a practice. It is something that people get wrong a lot and have to make adjustments. When people make social standards they do it for personal reasons or to benefit people they care about, so their morality will be focused on those people, people they understand, people they know or who are connected with or similar to themselves.

 

[metis]

I don't like the wording of the OP. So, here's my take in general.

All societies set up what's moral and what's not, and that varies in type from one to another.

Are morals "relative"? In this sense, yes. Are there some morals that may not be? I think so, because some seems to be built into us genetically. We are social animals, and all social animals have some sort of "pecking order" = morality.

 

[Augustus]

Are morals "relative"? In this sense, yes. Are there some morals that may not be? I think so, because some seems to be built into us genetically. We are social animals, and all social animals have some sort of "pecking order" = morality.

I agree with this. We do have some kind of 'nature' the same as all other animals, and I suppose some of this must connect to what we would term morality.

However, the idea that such an intrinsic morality relates to something like modern secular humanism (as has sometimes been argued) is laughable given our history. Such a moral system seems to be socially successful though, and this is a good reason to argue that it is superior than the morality of IS for example.

We are (semi) intelligent creatures and can learn what benefits us. Cats aren't intrinsically house pets, but they can learn that being one is in their best interests. We learn what benefits us in our environment and turn it into 'rules'. Most morals are adaptations rather than an innate part of our genetic make-up.

Time is a great judge of value, things that don't work die out. Things that 'stand the test of time' tend to have something about them that works.

 

[Laika]

Are you all moral relativists?

Are some liberals afraid to express certainty on moral issues?

Most liberals are not moral relativists, but would assert an objective and universal morality derived from human nature as the source for "human rights". Moral relativism undermines the case for "human" rights because it asserts that culture is the primary factor in determining what is and is not acceptable.

the relationship between liberalism and moral relativism is that, in asserting the rights of individuals it also asserts that morality can be the product of individual choice. In its extreme form, it is "libertinism" rather than liberalism, as the individual descides what is or is not moral. However, going so far as to argue that human rights are a choice or are culturally conditioned almost inevitably falls outside the definition of liberalism as a political system based on the rule of law, government by consent and individual liberty. If anything moral relativism makes a powerful case against liberalism, such as by nationalism and race in the far-right or by emphasis on class, gender, sexual orientation, race on the far-left. Asserting religious differences as taking precedence over human rights also leads to a form of moral relativism to some extent. its also a very strong feature of totalitarian systems (but they have their own "moral system" for which moral relativism is only a way of describing certian features of it).

I know that "liberalism" is now one of those words whose meaning has been subjected to a great deal of propaganda and polarisation, but I hope I've illustrated how moral relativism is largely unsustainable and inconsistent with a liberal system of government.

 

[Yerda]

'Sometimes said'? By whom?

Mostly conservative bloggers and Sam Harris. You've never heard an angry conservative attack liberals for moral relativism?

I know of no support on the left for mandatory burka and FGM. Do you have any proof?

No. I was curious to see the opinions of liberals on this forum so I started this thread.

I once asked a member of this forum, who is liberal and seems to me to be a very considerate and intelligent person, whether if we encountered child-rape we could condemn it without qualification. This person seemed to think not because morals are products of the society we find ourselves in. That is about the extent of my experience of apparent moral relativism amongst liberals.

 

[Yerda]

I don't like the wording of the OP.

Can you explain what it is you don't like?

All societies set up what's moral and what's not, and that varies in type from one to another.

Are morals "relative"? In this sense, yes. Are there some morals that may not be? I think so, because some seems to be built into us genetically. We are social animals, and all social animals have some sort of "pecking order" = morality.

I agree that societies can be said to decree what is moral and what isn't and that this varies between societies but I would disagree that this has any bearing on what is moral and what is not. I am also sceptical that the source of our moral intuition governs the moral truth of a matter.

Would you agree that there are moral questions with objective answers?

 

[metis]

I agree with this. We do have some kind of 'nature' the same as all other animals, and I suppose some of this must connect to what we would term morality.

However, the idea that such an intrinsic morality relates to something like modern secular humanism (as has sometimes been argued) is laughable given our history. Such a moral system seems to be socially successful though, and this is a good reason to argue that it is superior than the morality of IS for example.

We are (semi) intelligent creatures and can learn what benefits us. Cats aren't intrinsically house pets, but they can learn that being one is in their best interests. We learn what benefits us in our environment and turn it into 'rules'. Most morals are adaptations rather than an innate part of our genetic make-up.

Time is a great judge of value, things that don't work die out. Things that 'stand the test of time' tend to have something about them that works.

Like chimps, we humans are very territorial creatures, so how we identify ourselves, tends to have limits. It would be great if we were totally compassionate to all people and all peoples, but that's not how our genes manifest themselves, and one can see that with how a very young child tends to not relate well towards total strangers, thus seeking comfort and protection with those that are the closest to them.

 

[metis]

Can you explain what it is you don't like?

I agree that societies can be said to decree what is moral and what isn't and that this varies between societies but I would disagree that this has any bearing on what is moral and what is not. I am also sceptical that the source of our moral intuition governs the moral truth of a matter.

Would you agree that there are moral questions with objective answers?

To your first question, it was put in terms of either/or, whereas answering it should be looked at as being more shades of grey.

To me, I think it's likely that the only solid "moral truth" that is consistent comes from our genes. Beyond that, societies tend to determine what's "moral". Let me use as a quick example human sacrifices, which were abhorred by most societies but not all. With the Mayans, they played a game similar to what we now call LaCrosse, and it was the winning team, not the losing team, that was sacrificed after the game was over, and those to be sacrificed to the gods considered it to be an honor, and they fought for that distinction.

 

[sun rise]

Mostly conservative bloggers and Sam Harris. You've never heard an angry conservative attack liberals for moral relativism?

No. I was curious to see the opinions of liberals on this forum so I started this thread.

I once asked a member of this forum, who is liberal and seems to me to be a very considerate and intelligent person, whether if we encountered child-rape we could condemn it without qualification. This person seemed to think not because morals are products of the society we find ourselves in. That is about the extent of my experience of apparent moral relativism amongst liberals.

Yes I've read such blanket attacks. made from ignorance.

Let's take another question: what age is it moral to be married? Some criticize Islam for the age of marriage of Aisha to Muhammad. But if you look at Europe etc, you see the same basic age at the time http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/09/age-of-consent-in-european-american-history/ “In Medieval and early modern European societies, the age of marriage remained low, with documented cases of brides as young as seven years, although marriages were typically not consummated until the girl reached puberty (Bullough 2004). Shakespeare’s Juliet was just 13, and there is no hint in the play that this was considered to be exceptional. The situation was similar on the other side of the Atlantic; Bullough reports the case in 1689 of a nine-year-old bride in Virginia. At the start of the nineteenth century in England, it was legal to have sex with a 10 year-old girl.” [2]

So the answer I give to that question about minors is: there were and still are societies where young girls are married before puberty and even in some cases sex with them considered acceptable. In those societies it's considered moral whereas in our society it's now considered immoral. But my value judgement is that there are absolute principles of morality which some societies express more fully than others.

 

[Yerda]

To your first question, it was put in terms of either/or, whereas answering it should be looked at as being more shades of grey.

To me, I think it's likely that the only solid "moral truth" that is consistent comes from our genes. Beyond that, societies tend to determine what's "moral". Let me use as a quick example human sacrifices, which were abhorred by most societies but not all. With the Mayans, they played a game similar to what we now call LaCrosse, and it was the winning team, not the losing team, that was sacrificed after the game was over, and those to be sacrificed to the gods considered it to be an honor, and they fought for that distinction.

Ok. Thanks for explaining.

I agree that moral values are different across time and culture and that there are many shades of grey. I also believe it is possible to have the right or wrong answer to a moral question, even if it is almost always difficult to find the right one. Mayans who practised human sacrifice were wrong. They may not have valued human life (or specific human lives) but in this case they had values that were wrong. I suspect that you disagree and that is fine, though if you'd like to elaborate I'd like to read what you have to say.

 

[Yerda]

I would say that when Ben Affleck was on the Bill Maher show several months ago he provided an example of just such a liberal. In this case he claimed that criticism of Islam was racist.

He seemed to be defending what he values though he came across as a bit confused.

 

[icehorse]

He seemed to be defending what he values though he came across as a bit confused.

It seems to me that Affleck would call himself a liberal. And it seemed to me that he doesn't want to offend anyone, so he's willing to equivocate on his liberal values to avoid causing offense. Is that not what you were looking for in the OP?