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.
AY,
Veracity of intelligence is always an issue in decision making. Thanks for pointing that out.
mahtso,
Israel isn’t the 51st state. The issue remains there was no evidence Saddam was funding terrorist attacks against us. He dismantled his chemical weapons program after our previous smack down on him. The last thing he wanted to a piece of us again. But comparative pennies on just screwing with Israel? Sure. He was down for that. It doesn’t compare in scale to the 9/11 attack or change that he had nothing to do with it.
Dredd,
Your scaling is off and it’s making your focus drift again. Adjust your set.
nick says, “Lots of theory here. However, while a judge in a jurisdiction is bound to adhere to the rules of civil procedure, and while they do in theory, there are wide variances in the application of those rules.”
That guidelines vary in application by geography does not change that those guidelines exist. The even and consistent application of them is an issue created by the human element in the machine. Until humans are perfect, their administration of their constructs is going to be as imperfect as they are. Now while human fallibility and imperfection can be mitigated by careful rule construction, it can never be eliminated. To reject a solution because it is imperfect even if it is functional is the Nirvana fallacy. Functional with an aspiration of perfect ethics and justice is the best we can do unless we turn over the administration of justice to machines (which would present a whole other set of problems but eliminate the issue of even and constancy in administration).
Tony C,
I think human sacrifice falls into the category of problems where it is possible to acknowledge cultural differences and still find that some of these practices and beliefs are wrong. Killing people for a belief, even if it is earnest and the victims are voluntary, is simply ethically wrong headed and unscientific no matter the cultural differences much like eugenics is simply wrong no matter what the Nazis practiced. Not all ideas, including those within an ethical framework, are created equal. Does the voluntary takes some of the onus off of it? Perhaps. But not enough to transform it from a bad idea to a good idea.
Blind Faithiness says:
“Do you have any thoughts or knowledge of societies present/past that show higher/lower degrees of moral and ethical relativism across that societies generations? If yes, are there commonalities or tendencies that are seen within those society’s cultures and histories that are notable?”
In other words, are there examples of societies that are fairly immune/prone to high degrees of evolving morals/ethics(maybe through heavily codified ethical standards that are less open to malleable interpretations across generations in the case of “immune” group)? What’s the effect?”
Those are excellent questions and unfortunately I don’t have any concrete knowledge on those issues because I’ve never come across any kind of study like that. However, I do think you’ve just made some aspiring Ph.D. very happy by providing either a thesis subject or a study he/she can apply for a grant to complete. Certainly hope so anyway, because I would love to read those results myself. I can see some problems with conducting such research historically, the first being resolution of data. It’s going to degrade as you go back in time fairly rapidly. It would probably be better to build data working from the present forward, but I’m not sure anyone would live long enough to use a meaningful timescale in creating their sample space. But that’s some graduate student’s problem to work out. 😀
“Nice article, btw.”
Thanks.
I would gladly immolate myself on the Capitol steps if it would make a difference.
Where does this sudden appearance of “fairness” come from? Several have used it. Some legal eagle, surely he remembers, pointed out that the law (or was it justice?) was NOT fair, but it was legal.
Fair in my interpreter means equality, as in “fair and square”, “measure for measure”, etc. This was mentioned before today. Cost versus benefit being equal.
But how this almost instinctively held concept is to be applied is another matter. And is the concept ubiquitous within different cultures?
Belief in absolutes is always a wrong way to go in my mind. Because they are mental constructs, subject only to logic and have no empirical grounds or proof of value or even existence.
I am admittedly over my head in these waters, so fire when ready, Freddy. C’est égale!
“Creon (to Antigone): “You, tell me not at length but in a word.
You knew the order not to do this thing.”
Antigone: “I knew, of course I knew. The word was plain.”
Creon: “And still you dared to overstep these laws.”
Antigone: “For me it was not Zeus who made that order. Nor did
that Justice who lives with the gods below mark out such laws to
hold among mankind. Nor did I think your orders were so strong
that you, a mortal man, could over-run the gods’ unwritten and
unfailing laws. Not now, nor yesterday’s, they always live, and no
one knows their origin in time …””
Antigone
@Blouise: Taking another human life is wrong …
How about in self-defense? How about in the defense of somebody that cannot defend themselves? How about killing a psychopath like Saddam Hussein or Ghadafi or Hitler, that we (with rational certainty) know will kill many others if allowed to live?
This is my point, what appears to be an immoral act stops being immoral under certain circumstances.
Which means acts, in and of themselves, do not define morality, but there is still an absolute to be found in the abstract, and that absoluteness is provided with the abstract concept of what is “fair.” What is moral is derived from what is “fair.” It is fair, under certain circumstances, to take a human life; usually under some circumstances when other human lives are part of that equation.
As far as the semantics of the word ‘fair,’ I do not think of ‘fair’ as being an emotional condition (although it can give rise to emotional conditions; just as a physical injury is not an emotional condition but can certainly give rise to one).
I think of fairness as being, like mathematics or physics or chemistry, something people can understand and perceive that is still independent of their understanding and perception. Which is why I think “fairness” can be an objectively determined state, within some small margin of error (just like physics or chemistry or other physical sciences).
When looking at the matter of ethical relativism/moral relativism and moral absolutes I have always found the Hatfield/McCoy feud to be one of the best jumping off points but one as to be fully versed on the the actual history and the legend in order to mount a sustainable argument … which one can do using either side.
rafflaw:
good example of ethical relativism, equating Israel with Iran. Or is that moral relativism?
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-theory.asp
“Just War Theory is conventionally advocated in contrast to two other views of the morality of war: pacifism and “realism.” Pacifism holds that the use of military force is never moral. Just War theorists correctly criticize this view on the grounds that evil aggressors exist who seek to kill and dominate the innocent, and that force is often the only effective way to stop them. War, they hold, is therefore sometimes morally necessary.
“Realism” is the view that war has no moral limitations. Just War Theory rejects this theory as well, holding that war, when necessary, must be conducted in accordance with strict moral principles. Since “realism” renounces morality, Just War theorists observe, its advocates cannot in principle oppose wars or acts of war in which the guilty unjustly kill the innocent. More broadly, Just War theorists argue, “realism” is deficient because it denies the need to think carefully about the moral issues raised by war. Given that, in wartime, thousands or millions of lives hang in the balance—given that war is a major undertaking with the potential to do massive good or massive evil—we are obligated to consider the important, and non-obvious, moral questions that war raises. These questions include: Under what circumstances should a nation go to war? And: What should a nation’s policies be toward the soldiers and civilians of enemy nations?”
I used to live in Steamboat Springs Colorado. I had a problem there with a bully who lived next door and was president of the city council. This guy bullied me for years and he got the city involved. Part of his bullying was that he built extra buildings that violated the zoning and development codes.
No one wanted to get involved. One of the city council members said that Princeton Ave was just a small road and not important. Even people who were supposed to be my friends said they couldn’t afford to get involved because it would cost them money or they would be injured. They just let me and my family have our lives destroyed.
So what happened was that because they didn’t enforce the zoning and development codes on my street, then they didn’t enforce it elsewhere. So then a David Engle died in a fire because his home didn’t have two egresses. His neighbor tried to save him but couldn’t get in because the fire was in front of the only way in. His apartment was in a one car garage and the other three sides were all cement. So basically the local community thought there was no substantial cost to letting my family be bullied because we weren’t important. But then a long term city resident lost his life as a consequence. As if that wasn’t enough the Colorado fire association noticed so there was some publicity from outside so then they started worrying about how their policy of only enforcing the zoning and development codes sometimes would affect them financially in terms of tourism, second home sales, and attracting workers.
Bruce,
Should we wait until Israel nukes Iran since they have nukes now and Iran doesn’t?
Prior post should read “it is fair”! 🙂
Great job Gene. I believe that fair play as Blouise brought up can and is defined differently by different people. According to the Sec. of State in Ohio is is fair play to try to stop people from voting. Unfortunately, I don’t think someone’s morals or politics can ever be totally left out of the decision process.
Wasn’t the gas used on the Kurds in Iraq considered a WMD?
Shall we wait until after Iran nukes Israel ?
Is murdering your daughters okay just they’re becomeing westernized?
Are we trying to stop evloution through global warming?
What was the real reason why we got in the vietnamese war?
I remember the first time I encountered the term, “Situational Ethics.” My grandmother ran an antique shop and had a lot of old books, one of which had that title. I think I was about fourteen at the time, and remember being appalled when I read the book. The idea that one can do some kind of mental gymnastic and find excuses for almost any kind of behavior went against the grain of what I believed then and still believe. Nothing is black and white, and there can be exceptions, such as the “thou shall not kill” proscription. Translated from the ancient Greek, it actually means, “Thou shall not murder,” but that is an argument for another venue. Some years later, Fr. Joseph Fletcher, an Episcopal minister, wrote on the topic, but the book I saw i my grandmother’s shop predated Fletcher’s interpretation by several decades.
Later, I learned about the concept of Karma, and that fit my worldview more closely. If you screw up, you have to keep coming back until you get it right. As I grow older and am coming to grips with my own mortality, I realize more each day that the human race is doomed to eventual extinction. If not by our own hand, it will be through evolutionary change or astronomical catastrophe. Each day, I encounter more instances of selfishness, greed, hypocrisy, and lies, all in the name of some religion. The image of the Pope wearing Prada slippers and gold brocade robes that cost enough to feed and provide medications for several third world villages for a year makes me ill. Vow of poverty my a$$.
The clock is running. What are each of our readers going to do with the time they have left that will benefit the human race? Keep in mind that benefiting the species may not equate to benefiting oneself.
Tony C,
All true but is it not that very thing that leads us to relativism?
What I’m talking about here is a balance between the ethical expectations of one’s society and the character of the individual within that society i.e. moral absolutes? Ethical codes devoid of moral absolutes are empty and “fair play” as the moral absolute seems too subjective to be an absolute.
Taking another human life is wrong … moral absolute. In order to justify the taking of a human life one must present reasons for doing so that the society can accept as “fair play”.
However, it may be that I have not fully understood your position and need time to adjust to the semantics of the word “fair”.
@Blouise: I do not think it IS a “judgment call.” If we allow objective reasoning into that category then everything is a judgment call, including whether 1+1=2. I am not being flip, I am using an extreme to disprove the claim that “objectively fair” is equivalent to a judgment call.
Certainly everything in ethics does in fact depend upon brains being able to project outcomes of human actions and decisions, and brains being able to judge whether or not somebody has taken an unfair action against another.
But the involvement of the human brain does not automatically make everything subjective. It requires human brains to engage in science, mathematics, and to process all of the other things we regard as “objective fact.” Just because we are involved and must agree does not mean that all knowledge is subjective, cultural, or circumstantially dependent.