by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
I had in interesting argument the other night. Not interesting because of the content precisely. It was old ground about the rationale for being in Iraq and Afghanistan and this person took the position of the post hoc rationalization “to contain Iran” and that – and this was a new one, funny but new – that our reason for being there was based on our need as driven by the hostage crisis of the 70’s. It wasn’t a match against a skilled opponent. He was about as smart and skilled at argumentation as a house plant and that is really an insult to house plants. But what was interesting was when the topic turned to the idea of just wars and ethical relativism. I’ll summarize the just war argument to give some context and then show how ethical relativism came into the conversation because it got me thinking about ethical relativism (and its natural cousin moral relativism). Is it a good idea or a path to anarchy?
Summary of the just war argument:
A’s Primary Contention: We went to war in Iraq to contain Iran because we’re on a 70’s style revenge mission for the hostage taking. (Ed. Note: Seriously. That was the claim.)
B’s Primary Contention: The rationale given the public for invading Iraq was “to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.” In the end, there were no WMDs, no support of terrorism, and the Iraqis were a lot better off before we removed the only stabilizing force holding their secular country together and destroyed their infrastructure. The just war would have been to attack those who attacked us on 9/11, the Saudis with help from Afghani terrorist training bases. It would have given us the same benefits as invading Iraq (oil, common border with Iran) and come at a substantially lower cost to materials and troops when combined with an in and out strategy in Afghanistan (which history has proven to be fairly immune to long term occupation because of geographic and societal factors).
A: There is no such thing as a just war. Name one.
B: I can name two. American entry into WWII and the Revolutionary War come to mind, but there are other examples of just war through history.
A: We went to war to make rich men richer.
B: Really. And that is a reason to wage war that is just?
A: I haven’t heard the term “just war” since Medieval History class. You’re a (*#$#($*#head.
B: That’s all very interesting but I think you don’t know what a just war is. %$*($%$.
A: I know there is no such thing.
B: I can think of a couple of examples. Coming to the defense of your allies in the face of outside aggression, in defense of attack or in retribution of an attack by foreign forces.
A: There’s no such thing as a just war. Just depends on your perspective.
B: No. It doesn’t. There are some ethical absolutes.
A: No there aren’t.
B: Saying there aren’t and proving there aren’t are two separate things.
A: You *()$(#)($#) $)#$()#$ ()$#$!
B: That’s still not proving there aren’t, )($#)()@head. Are there are are there no ethical absolutes? Yes or no.
A: That’s a stupid question.
B: It’s not stupid just because you can’t answer it. It’s a simple question.
[Much back and forth of “stupid” and/or ($#_)#@$#% combined with a rebuttal of “non-responsive, try again”.]
A: People make ethical judgements all the time.
B: That’s not what I asked. Are there ethical absolutes or not?
A: Have your ethics changed over time?
B: Yes they have but that is irrelevant to the question here: are there ethical absolutes or not?
A: You’ve got nothing!
B: You saying I’ve got nothing is not the same as you proving I’ve got nothing. Are you an ethical relativist?
A: Give me an example of an ethical absolute.
B: Human life has value. Protecting it is a good thing.
A: That’s true, but I just want to see some people die.
B: Then you are an ethical relativist and we really don’t have much more to discuss.
A: You’re jumping to conclusions.
B: No I’m not. If human life has value except when you “want to see someone die”, then you are an ethical relativist.
The rest of the conversation was basically A drunkenly ranting about how I (B) didn’t know $*(# and that he had me just where he wanted me (on my knees) before he called me a little girl and proclaimed victory. I was very not impressed. I’d say it was embarrassing for him, but he proudly proclaimed that “ignorance was not a problem for him” and that he thought “retrograde drunken Neanderthal” was a compliment. But I digress . . .
It all got me thinking about ethical relativism though.
What is ethical relativism? It is the philosophical theory stating that ethics are relative to the norms of one’s culture; whether an action is right or wrong depends on the ethical and moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. There are no universal ethical or moral standards and the only standards against which a society’s practices can be judged are its own. The implication of this is there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different cultures. We know from history that this is not the case. Some acts are considered to by universally wrong or right among the human species. Most ethicists reject ethical relativism because while the practices of societies may differ, the fundamental ethical and moral principles underlying these practices do not. Consider cultures where euthanasia is practiced like some Eskimo tribes when parents declare they are ready to die because of old age or illness, their families would kill them directly or leave them on the ice to die at the hands of nature. This would be frowned upon in our culture, but if you look at the underlying principle – taking care of one’s parents – both societies hold this principle as valuable.
Secondly, it’s an important topic because a kind of ethical relativism is encouraged in law schools under the guise of giving all comers adequate representation and ensuring a fair trial. It’s also something you see more often now in public behavior than in the past: rationalizations of bad behavior based on personal desire rather than ethical or moral principle. “I wanted to feel what killing someone felt like,” said 17 year old killer of 9 year old Elizabeth Olten. Truly a sign of someone with a broken ethical compass probably based in mental illness, but it illustrates the first problem with ethical relativism. It injects ego into the equation.
Consequently and concurrently we cannot remove ego from the equation altogether. If the ethical rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a societal norms, then the logical implication is that to be ethical that one must obey the norms of one’s society because deviance would be unethical or immoral. This leads to an interesting conundrum. If a member of a society that believes that racial or sexist practices are ethically wrong but they are permissible within that society, then one must accept those practices as morally right. This view is both oppressive and narrow in promoting unthinking social conformity and leaves no possibility for ethical and/or moral reform or improvement within a society. Consider that a lack of uniform majority though on a matter may not have created an ethical or moral standard to follow with the members of a society holding different views. Consider the example of the United States. Need I say more than “abortion” or “animal testing” or “medical marijuana” to provide examples of such unsettled ethical questions?
One of the strongest arguments against ethical relativism comes from the assertion that universal ethical and/or moral standards can exist even if some practices and beliefs vary among cultures. In other words, it is possible to acknowledge cultural differences and still find that some of these practices and beliefs are wrong. Consider that although the Aztec had a society that was in some ways more advanced that their contemporary European counterparts, that their practice of human sacrifice is simply wrong. Just so, the barbaric treatment of the Jews, Roma, homosexuals and the mentally handicapped by Nazi society is ethically and morally reprehensible regardless of the beliefs of the Nazis. Ethics are an intellectual inquiry into right and wrong through applying critical thought to the underlying reasons of various ethical and/or moral practices and beliefs. Ethical relativism fails to recognize that some societies may have better reasons for holding their views than other societies.
However, although ethical relativism has much going against it, it does remind us to examine and consider that different societies have different ethical and/or moral beliefs and invites us to examine those forces influence within our own culture. The only way to reach universal ethical truths whenever possible is through examining and challenging our own ethical systems by comparing them to other systems.
Can ethical relativism lead to anarchy? When everything is relative, there are no true stable standards, so I think the answer is yes.
Should ethical relativism be discouraged in our educational systems and society as a whole or do you teach it with the proper caveats and perspective to make it a useful tool instead of a dangerous tool?
Is ethical relativism a good thing or a bag thing?
Or is it like most tools dependent upon the user’s intent and application?
What do you think?
~submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger.
That was much closer to topic. Seriously, good job, Dredd.
“Secondly, it’s an important topic because a kind of ethical relativism is encouraged in law schools under the guise of giving all comers adequate representation and ensuring a fair trial. It’s also something you see more often now in public behavior than in the past: rationalizations of bad behavior based on personal desire rather than ethical or moral principle. “I wanted to feel what killing someone felt like,” said 17 year old killer of 9 year old Elizabeth Olten. Truly a sign of someone with a broken ethical compass probably based in mental illness, but it illustrates the first problem with ethical relativism. It injects ego into the equation.”
======================================================
Law schools teach law, supreme law included, which is the U.S. Constitution.
That constitution has absolute concepts (freedom of religion) which allows all kinds of divergent, different, and contradictory beliefs, dogmas, doctrine, and practices.
As a matter of law difference is protected, but the limits imposed say “go this far but no further”.
Killing someone to see what it feels like is going too far, but one can have the belief in a just war that kills millions.
We have a mixture of both absolute and relativistic that is derived from rear-view-mirror sociology and law … always looking backwards into the rear view mirror to see where to go.
The front windshield approach is better informed, the bigger picture, so all law should derive from absolute concepts of where we want to go:
(Tenet One Basics). Science says we are absolutely doomed if we stay on this planet too long, so if someone wants to override that with some ethical relativism that says “I don’t care” should those who want to develop space travel to avoid certain doom of the human race have to bow down to “I don’t care”?
No.
That is why absolutes have to be developed at the highest plane (cosmological), the place that protects the highest quantities and qualities of life.
So, the law that acknowledges both absolute and ethical relativism concepts still has to be used to insure survival.
If a religion says the Sun will last forever, “so don’t believe the science,” imposing that religious tenet upon those who believe the science is not proper, even though freedom of religion allows those of that religion to believe and practice their religion.
They could stay and the others could leave to a safer planet for example.
Malisha,
There are rules in place and both counsel should know them beforehand. Courts have rules to their particular type of court and there are also evidentiary and civil procedure rules that must be followed.
The first essential piece of a fair trial is that it follows certain rules that have been laid out beforehand, and thus, that all the participants in the fair trial knew, before the trial started, what those rules were. Anybody challenge this one? Please do if you disagree because I’m going somewhere with this.
Doh! Never mind, Bob! Cross talk. 😀
Bob Brandon,
Prof. Turley didn’t engage this rocket scientist. I did.
Or, as I should say, Mr. Howington.
Wow, if Prof. Turley’s willing to get into these kinds of conversations, I don’t feel nearly so bad that I have as well.
Mark/Wege,
“Either your opponent truly was an idiot, or you are doing his arguments a serious injustice.”
Go with your first impulse there. I hit the high points relevant to introducing ethical relativism, but the rest of his argument was just about as cogent as that in the summary and not worth including.
Either your opponent truly was an idiot, or you are doing his arguments a serious injustice. How do you avoid “just” wars? In retrospect it’s easy but in real time it’s possible.
Would we have had WWII if Europe had immediately turned its back on Hitler, economically throttling his reich? NOTHING could have been done? Really? REALLY?!!!
And given that the United States of GOD BLESS AMERICA overthrew the FIRST democratically elected government in the Middle East because they weren’t rude enough to communists, maybe just maybe don’t’cha think it’s remotely somehow within the realm of theoretically probability that the hostage situation would have never happened had we not effed with Iran first? And that absent the hostage situation (and the Shah’s fascist Iran in general) there wouldn’t have been most of the crap we’ve got in the Middle East today?
Your sarcasm does not mitigate your impenetrable “oh this is obvious” logic. Wars can be avoided, just like sanctimony.
Oh, and I also believe in just war. It’s just that I’ve never seen one lately that couldn’t have been averted had the other parties made any real effort. But the first step is this: STOP MOCKING THE PEACEMAKERS. YOUR CYNICISM MAKES FUTURE WAR INEVITABLE.
And since I mentioned that I believe in just war, I should also point out that I believe in just revolution. If this country goes to war with Iran, American citizens will be justified in taking up arms against our government. We’re past the enough is enough stage. It’s time to stop going to war just because Israel said we should. And yes, isn’t it truly amazing that no where else in the entire world are our interests threatened like they are in the Middle East? We never talk about going to war anywhere else. Maybe your opponent should have mentioned that. Or maybe they did, but that’s the part of their message that made no sense to you.
My name is Mark Gisleson. I got locked into an old blogging identity on this site but I wouldn’t want to hide my name while responding to this post.
Thanks again for adding a lot of words that don’t add any substance, Dredd, other than to pimp yourself and one of your blogs. You are a tiresome thing. Predictable as you are tedious.
mespo,
Thanks. And I too see the value of ethical relativism as an analytical tool but the dangers as well. I also don’t think that ethical absolutes are always unattainable though. The problem is usually cross-cultural and semantic. One man’s murder is another man’s religiously sanctioned and ethically (within that society) proper and legal honor killing. Both societies prohibit murder, the disagreement is over what constitutes murder and why. I don’t think that is an insurmountable problem in defining an ethical absolute. It’s a problem in enforcing it from an ethical standpoint when you are fighting against the weight of religiously derived definitions that may be and often are irrational. Ethics comes with reason that morals do not require. For that reason, it can find answers some of the time that evade codes based on belief.
Is ethical relativism a good thing or a bag thing?
Or is it like most tools dependent upon the user’s intent and application?
What do you think?
=========================================
Like I said in my comment above, it depends on how myopic, or to the contrary how big of a picture one wants consideration of the issues to be.
If one wants to limit them to the ethical relativism of a particular blog, an example of myopia, then one type of reasoning will develop.
If one wants to limit it to a particular nation, the vision expands some, but still that is myopic.
The largest territory is universal, cosmological, then down to perhaps galactic, then down to a star system, then finally down to a planet.
So that ethical relativism can have its limited place, based upon the users intent and application.
However, humanity has only been around for an extremely insignificant amount of time, thus those things that precede us such as cosmological law, the law of star birth and death, and natural planetary laws, should govern concepts of both absolutist ideology and relativistic ideologies.
Currently, the human civilization is doing quite badly in terms of ability to survive very long.
Mouths are blabbing constantly within a sphere that will go silent if society does not mature very significantly.
Superb treatment of the topic, Gene. As you know I’ve subscribed to the moral/ethical relativism camp. Societies create most everything they utilize including their own ethical structures. These structures change with succeeding generations but they are decidedly parochial. Efforts to find a universal norm usually end in failure with the prohibition against murder being the best approximation. This leaves a resort to some deity or other fixed locus of morals which most often mimics the proponent of the fixed point.
You’ve got to love anthropology.
Also Kay, they tend to teach ethics geared toward passing the MPRE, the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam. I had few options beyond that regarding ethics and the law in a more general sense. I did, however, have a course in logic and legal reasoning which I’ve since found out is not a common offering. It was excellent and helped answer a lot of questions including ethical ones via providing and enhancing useful analytical tools, but it wasn’t an ethics course proper.
That’s pretty easy, Kay. Just keep in mind this is my experience and may not be uniform across law schools, but mostly I find more in common between schools than not when talking to people from other schools than where I attended. They don’t frame the duty to the courts for a fair trial in terms of ethical relativism, but that is the implied lesson from the emphasis on ethical relativism being a way to defend clients fully and zealously whether you think they are guilty or not personally. That’s actually necessary. However, they frame the duty owed the court vis a vis a fair trial without ever discussing in depth the impact zealous representation has on that duty. It basically, “Don’t let your duty to represent interfere with your duty as officers of the court to promote a fair trial and justice.” At least I never heard anyone speak about it with greater depth than that. Everyone is basically left to figure out that relationship on their own. Some do better at this than others and figure out ways to zealously represent without letting it get in the way of keeping the courts fair. Some don’t do so well with the concept and adopt a win at costs mentality that is ultimately damaging to the court’s ability to provide a fair trial. Honestly, I don’t know if educating the law students better on the philosophy here would make a big dent in the percentage of those who figure out that a zealous defense is not the same thing as manipulation of process to get a desired result, just or otherwise. A better ethical education may not eliminate the problem, but it would certainly mitigate the problem.
Gene
I’d like you to expand on your perception of the duty to provide a fair trial and how law school teaches that.
I’d like to thank you for once again contributing absolutely nothing even remotely topical to a thread, Dredd.
A lot of these concepts are ancient and not informed by some of the awareness we have added over the centuries.
Some of those ideologies were not informed of the human capacity to self extinct, for human ecocide, nor utter destruction through nuclear war.
Those concepts were not real back then, but they are now.
So now we know we can self destruct our entire civilization, and that the cosmos, and even the Sun alone, can do it to us too.
That gives a bench mark of doing what is required to survive, which means discovering and practising those principles.
From that, we can determine if we are on the right track to survival or on the wrong tract to extinction.
Once we master survival on the Earth, socially, among nations and ethnic groups, then we can go major league and focus on cosmic survival (The Tenets of Ecocosmology).
We are utterly doomed on this planet unless at some time we master realistic space travel and mature cosmic migration.
If we cannot survive as a group, as a socially mature species, then philosophies, religions, sciences, arts, collective knowledge, and individuality all goes down the drain together on a planet that will eventually be consumed by the Sun.
And then there are the religious ways of thinking, for example, that God is going to save us from ourselves if we can’t do it ourselves.
The following fairly short video is up to date and illustrates some bench marks for survival from a scientific perspective:
Wow. I’m gonna have to let this sink in for a bit…