« Mowing Life Lessons | Main | Stupid Conservative Tricks »

June 24, 2002

Moral Relativism, Scalzi Style

My wife is in summer school (she is 16, you see -- no, not really), and among the classes she's taking this quarter is an introduction to ethics course, one of those courses where the great moral issues of the day are plopped on the table and everybody goes back and forth on the issue but nothing really gets resolved; not unlike the UN, but somewhat less expensive to participate. The textbook for the class is called Taking Sides, and it features about 20 contentious issues, like "Should Abortions Be Legal?" or "Should Great Apes Be Given Human Rights?" with one essay on the topic arguing for the question, and another, naturally, arguing against. Nowhere present is the third essay, in which the first two essayists are labeled pedantic twits, followed by the suggestion that everyone reading the book should simply go out for cheeseburgers and a round of pool. It's a real shame it's not there.

Unsurprisingly, most of the topics that are under consideration in Taking Sides are topics that I already have fairly strong opinions about; perhaps also not surprisingly, it seems that most of the time is not at all like the opinion of the book's appointed pro and con representatives. This is because in most cases of ethical and moral conundrums, the arguments of those totally for or totally against an issue exist in a rhetorical fantasyland that has no real relationship with the world human beings actual live in. Ethics isn't mathematics; one can't take as given certain things in order create an elegant and coherent system. Human beings are messy things, after all. Ethics and morality are and always shall be a messy business.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the first question that Taking Sides posits: "Is Morality Relative to Culture?" The cultural conservative position on this, of course, would be no -- there are certain aspects of morality that are independent of one's culture (and, conveniently, those aspects of morality tend to be those moral aspects which a cultural conservative finds convenient). Cultural liberals, of course, tend to take exception to both the theory and practice of an absolute morality, since those "absolutes" tend to get in the way of whatever activity it is that they're enjoying and that the conservatives are worried that they are enjoying too much. The only problem with this position is that taken to its extreme it means that you have no right to complain when someone speaks glowingly to the morality of, say, female genital mutilation in they Sudan. Sure, it's immoral here, but in the Sudan, they've been doing it forever. It's perfectly moral there.

Both positions are fundamentally pretty stupid. The conservative position of an absolute morality has always struck me as weak, because the construction of an absolute morality (which almost always conforms to their morality of choice) is a tacit admission that they can't sell their lifestyle without divine intervention. All assertions for an absolute morality that I know of eventually lead back to a God of some sort, the existence of which is fundamentally unprovable. There may be someone out there is who is arguing that that there's a Chomsky-like "deep structure" for morality, which would be independent of an end-point celestial lawgiver, but if there is, I haven't heard of him or her, and I can't really imagine any cultural conservative wanting to use Chomsky-ian tools to make a point; it's just not in them to be agnostic about the provenance of their argument.

On the flip side, it's difficult to intellectually to support a position on morality whose finally reductive argument leaves room for the aforementioned genital mutilation or shoving little girls back into a burning building to die because their heads aren't properly covered, as so recently happened in Saudi Arabia. Neither argument satisfies because neither argument has anything to do with the real world.

Here's an argument that I think works: Yes, morals are relative to culture and independent of any larger, overarching system of morality that all of humanity shares. But if one believes that morals are relative to cultures, it does not therefore follow that one must believe that all cultures are created equal, or that the moralities therein are equivalent. This is an argument that allows you to say: "Your morals are rooted in your culture -- but your culture truly sucks."

I don't have any problems with this formulation at all. On the one hand, America's culture owes most of its distinct and durable character to a marvelous act of intellectual manufacture on the part of the founding fathers. They created a political culture almost entirely out of whole cloth, and by doing so helped to create the social and moral culture that supported the aims of the political culture. Neither of these existed anywhere on the planet prior to the founding of the United States, and even attempts within the United States to fight them (the Civil War comes to mind) ended up ultimately strengthening them (mind you, there are still some kinks to work out). There are certainly numerous cultural threads to the social life of the US, but the most important one -- the one that ensures personal liberty -- was a whole new thing.

Moreover, this created culture and morality is a better one (by and large) than others. Part of this can be seen pragmatically: The US is the most powerful country in the history of the world because the culture and morality of personal liberty has allowed for the creation of a rich, healthy, hard working and (reasonably) intelligent populace. But it's also evident simply in what it allows, which is for just about everything, once you're an adult. An open and free society can include, as a subset, and damn fool thing you want to believe in -- even a morally restrictive lifestyle (I mean, I live near Amish). The only real restriction on this is that you can't drag other people down with you if they don't want to go, but if you can live with that, have at it.

Cultural conservatives believe that having morality dependant on culture ultimately leads to anarchy, but I don't see that as being the case. Most people are smart enough to see that their freedom to do whatever they want stops when whatever they want unwillingly involves someone else (more accurately, people realize that someone else's freedom to do what they want stops when it involuntarily involves them). People don't want anarchy; it cramps their ability to do what they choose to do. Thus we have a society that, with a few reactionary spasms now and then, largely lets us live as we want to.

It's hard to beat that, and I'll pit it against any other culture, and any other morality, any day of the week.

Posted by john at June 24, 2002 05:27 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


andos | April 22, 2005 07:36 AM

thats one of the most ignorant articals i have ever read. i suppose ignorance is bliss, and thats a must have if your living in the US.

Anonymous | January 20, 2007 06:53 PM

For the most part, I agree with you. But, it seems that Americans really have a hard time speaking on this topic because of an extreme inability to be objective about other cultures. For example, you claim that America's success is based on some sort of cultural and moral superiority. That's simply not true. America's success is based on one thing: geography. What an amazing piece of real estate! If several million chimpanzees had managed to consolidate the whole of that land under one banner (by killing a few million Indians) then you would have today a superpower of chimpanzees. However, it was Americans, and not chimpanzees, and so we have a superpower of Americans. I'm not kidding as much as you think. Any set of values would have been irrelevant to the possessers of your country. If America had been a communist nation it still would have been enormously successful due to its extraordinary geographical advantage over any other nation on earth (of course, communism wasn't around in 1776, but I'm making a point). Do you really believe that if America had been situated in an area the size of, say, England, that it would have been as successful as it has been? America has enormous resources and almost every geographical advantage imaginable. Countries like Canada and Russia have most of their land mass in the arctic. And China, while larger than the US, is largely mountainous and inhospitable. Conversely, America enjoys a temperate climate throughout and has amazing navigable waterways. And you also say that the founding fathers were exceedingly original in their ideas. Not true. All of the ideas which went into the making of your constitution were imported by your founding fathers from Europe. These were enlightenment ideals, and also ideas taken from ancient Greece and Rome; there are also many points in common with the Magna Carta. Your founding fathers were admirable men, but not necessarily original. The only difference is that, in America, there was no old order to overthrow in order to implement these ideas. They were able to start carte blanche. And also, I should remind you that your Declaration of Independence, which states: all men are created equal, was written by rich, white slave owners. Your country is a mass of contradictions and hypocrisies. Sure, you may say that America overthrew an old order when it got rid of the British. But the truth is that America lost every major battle of its war of independence. The only reason the Brits left was because 1) they didn't know what they were giving up (remember, America had not really been explored past the Appalachians); 2) the war was very unpopular at home in Britain where their subjects were burdened with heavy taxes to pay for the war(far heavier than Americans were being taxed; in fact, America, at the time, was the least taxed colony in the British Empire); 3) Britain was simultaneously at war with just about every other nation in Europe. So basically, you didn't fight them out---they left on their own.
That said, I agree that "Western" culture (not American culture) is superior to all others. I should remind you that there are several other nations out there which are far more open and tolerant than America. This is a fact.
In the future, you should use Western Culture instead of American Culture as a basis on which to form your arguments. That would give your ideas more credence and much more credibility. You are not the progenitor of Western Values. It is the other way around. However, we owe an enormous debt to America because they showed the rest of the world how great these ideas could be if they became a part of a nation's fabric. But, once again, these ideas were not so simple to implement in Old European countries. The French Revolution is far more important in that it showed these European nations that change was possible, that liberty, fraternity, and equality were possible, that the old order could be overturned.
Boy, Americans sure have a hard time looking at history with any sense of objectivity. Watching television you'd almost think that America was the only nation that fought in World War II.
Anyways, please remember that American culture, while once a light for the rest of the world, has been surpassed by many other western nations today. For example, Sweden and Canada have far better health care systems, and far better education systems. They are far more open and tolerant, far less racist, and much less violent.

cam girls | January 26, 2007 10:10 AM

cam girls cam girls

live web cam | January 26, 2007 06:08 PM

live web cam live web cam

Post a comment.

Comments are moderated to stop spam; if your comment goes into moderation, it may take a couple of hours to be released. Please read this for my comment moderation policies.
Preview will not show paragraph breaks. Trust me, they're there.
The proprietor generally responds to commenters in kind. If you're polite, he'll be polite. If you're a jackass, he'll be a jackass. If you are ignorant, he may correct you.
When in doubt, read the comment thread rules.

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)