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.
Okay peoples. I have other things I need to get back to after taking way too long for a late lunch. Good thread everyone (the propaganda troll excepted). Keep it up and I’ll try to get back by later to see what ya’ll have come up with.
Kay,
I think I’m not going to discuss the particulars of your case with you other than to advise you to get an attorney and say that while it is your right to defend yourself it is actually a very bad idea (even for lawyers).
@Blouise: I accept your “fair play” theory but not as an absolute.
If that is true, then by implication you believe there are moral acts that are fundamentally unfair to somebody. Can you tell me what they are?
Bron,
In re your post of October 21, 2012 at 1:58 pm.
That may be the best supplemental post you’ve ever put up. I didn’t include that framework in its totality because mainly I included the summary to show the path that led to ethical relativism and I didn’t want to run too long on what I considered a sidebar. Good add and thanks.
And just because you’ve probably forgotten what it’s like, I’ll remind you this message is snark and sarcasm free.
@Gene
So what do you think about no pro se orders and imprisonment of pro se litigants such as myself in order to stop them from filing papers in Court?
@Slart: Was it moral/ethical to start a war (on false pretenses) that killed over 150,000 people to stop Saddam?
I do not think so. How is it fair to value the life of Hussein above the lives of 150,000 other people? (Which is what I would have to do to claim it was a fair trade.)
I think a rational case for fairness could be made that involved the loss of some lives now to prevent the loss of more lives over the course of his reign, which is exactly the kind of case I would make for our own revolutionary war, civil war, or WWII: That the net good done for humanity would exceed the net harm done to innocents. (And I will hasten to note I made the same argument, for myself, when I was a grunt in the military and the potential cannon fodder.)
I certainly believe Hussein, Bin Laden, Ghadafi and others deserved death, and I do believe there is some level of sacrificed lives (of soldiers and / or civilians) that would have been justifiable, but I also believe that justice could have been accomplished without lies and at a far lesser cost.
In Hussein’s case, I think those 150,000 lives were sacrificed by Bush out of pique and adolescent machoism, and by Cheney out of sociopathic greed, for “personal gain,” namely egotistical self-righteousness and an opportunity to steal oil that rightly belongs to the Iraqi people.
“FairlyBalanced 1, October 21, 2012 at 3:36 pm
I was not for taking out Iraq and I am not for taking out the Saudi regime. The Bushie got the wrong Eye country. He should have invaded Iran.”
Yeah. He should have invaded another country that didn’t attack us on 9/11. I think he attacked the wrong “I” country too. He should have attacked Ireland.
Propaganda spewing dufus.
Tony,
“Nothing is “absolute” if there are exceptions to it, by definition.”
Only if you follow act utilitarianism. Soft rule utilitarianism allows rules to have exceptions and this is what makes it valuable for analysis of equity. Remember, justice should be equitable. That an absolute principle exists is not impacted by recognizing exceptions demanded by equity. Or do you think the serial killer and the drunk driver who plows into a crowd are deserving the same change and punishment?
Tony C.,
Although you cited correctly you left out the succinct next sentence which acknowledges all the examples you gave … “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’.”
The absolute must be there before the “fair play” can be determined. That is what I referred to as the balancing act.
You originally recognized this when you began … “I do believe in a small core of ethical absolutism”. (12:09pm) but I could not follow you in your statement … “In my view, ethical absolutes cannot really be defined in terms of specific acts…” It is there that we part ways on the reasoning trail.
I accept your “fair play” theory but not as an absolute. And I believe the absolutes come out of the common human herd experience not out of any religious conviction so I am in complete agreement with your statement “we are born with those ethical constraints on our behavior, by definition …” DNA, baby, DNA.
In other words, the absolutes are there at birth (and absent in certain “sick” personalities) and the “fair play” is learned behavior dictated by the culture into which one is born (and usually faked by those very same “sick” personalities)
Tony C.,
“Only because, scientifically speaking, it won’t work! Persons that voluntarily commit suicide by volunteering for sacrifice to a God have been defrauded into thinking there is a God that can be appeased by their death. THAT is what makes it immoral, the sacrifice is the fruit of an immoral tree.”
You could have stopped at scientifically speaking it won’t work. Part of establishing justice is establishing the evidentiary truth in order to form equitable solution. The discovery process, while under different constraints than the scientific method due to chain of custody and proper/improper discovery issues, is otherwise much like the scientific method in that information must be verifiable or falsifiable. The fact is that regardless of intent or belief of either killer or willing victim, a life was taken and it was not taken in self defense or the defense of others. The decision would be is it murder one, murder two or manslaughter? But the act itself is unethical absent those exceptions so it is malum in se with mitigating factors possible.
@Gene: The fallacy of composition, Tony. Just because some principle are absolute does not mean all are absolute.
Sigh. Nor did I say they were. If you read further, you will see I said the argument is damaged, not invalidated, because one of its first principles is not axiomatic.
@Gene: The right to life is an ethically absolute principle
Nothing is “absolute” if there are exceptions to it, by definition. The exceptions in this case relate to “fairness,” which I believe IS ethically absolute; because I see no exceptions to it.
Thanks, Gene H. So, if you have certain rules for how to conduct civil trials (probably called “Civil Procedure” or the like) and certain rules for how to conduct criminal trials (probably called “Criminal Procedure” or the like) and they are in two separate sections of the written code of a state, can you then mix them up in one trial and still have a fair trial?
Corollary question: Know of any state that mixes criminal and civil procedures so you can hold two trials together? I know California doesn’t do it because of the O.J. Simpson trials, but do you know of any state that DOES do it?
Thanks.
Slarti asks, “Are morality and ethics shaped by intent or result (or both)? Which should people be held responsible for? ”
I’m going to say it depends on the nature of the crime. Mostly results (actus reus) is at issue. The act itself is wrong regardless of intent. Intent (mens rea) rarely figures into the analysis with the exception of certain crimes like conspiracy or for specific intent crimes like murder where the defendants state of mind directly impacts the choice of charge and sentencing. The act is wrong an intent is either a direct element of the crime (conspiracy) or technically relevant (degrees of murder). Not all crimes require mens rea, but all crimes require actus reus.
@Gene: 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.
Only because, scientifically speaking, it won’t work! Persons that voluntarily commit suicide by volunteering for sacrifice to a God have been defrauded into thinking there is a God that can be appeased by their death. THAT is what makes it immoral, the sacrifice is the fruit of an immoral tree.
On the other hand, those that commit “suicide by battle,” as I feel certain many of the NYC firemen on 9/11 knew they were doing, commit an act of morality; they really did sacrifice their own lives so that other lives could be saved. The life expectancy of firemen and policemen (and front line soldiers) really are lower because they really are sacrificing their lives that others might live, or even just live better. That is not immoral, it is moral.
Bron,
🙂
Tony C. seems to have the best and most cogent argument here. i.e. Moral absolutes are not linked to behavior but to principles and/or rationales. The use of force for no reason other than ego gratification-whether that gratification is linked to an individual’s desire/need for sex, power, or sadistic pleasure, or in the case of governments and societies, oppression, colonialism, or the acquisition of resources-is absolutely wrong. This removes the relativism of circumstance…i.e. if the person volunteers to be sacrificed ( no force involved) or if a violent act is done in defense of self or loved ones or to forestall imminent death (no ego gratification.)
Of course, as long as human beings ( by which I mean individuals, governments and societies at large) can speak they will rationalize “bad” behavior. Governments, in particular, will always find a rationale for “war” and the wholesale destruction of life and property that ensues. But rationalization does not change the moral absolute that war, except in self-defense and then only to the extent that the response is in direct proportion to the threat, is always wrong. As Ghandi stated so eloquently,
“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? ”
While I think that Tony’s argument veers a little off course in the end.. i.e.understanding and perception cannot BE independent of understanding and perception… I do think the idea of “fairness” can nonetheless be understood as the only moral absolute.
I was not for taking out Iraq and I am not for taking out the Saudi regime. The Bushie got the wrong Eye country. He should have invaded Iran. Now they are about to get a nuclear bomb. When they use it the chickens will come home to roost. It took Japan about 40 years to get up to speed to bomb Pearl Harbour. So the parallel Gene makes is appropriate and backfires. Bomb, bomb, Iran. To the tune of the Saturday Night Live song.
OS,
It sounds like your grandmother was a fan of soft rule utilitarianism. 😀
I’d have liked her.
All I’ve got are questions right now, so I thought I’d share with the class…
Tony,
You mention killing Saddam Hussein—Was it moral/ethical to start a war (on false pretenses) that killed over 150,000 people to stop Saddam?
Gene,
Are morality and ethics shaped by intent or result (or both)? Which should people be held responsible for?
Blouise,
Anything that takes your mind off of kicking my ass at Scrabble is good with me… 😛
Tony C says, “I do believe in a small core of ethical absolutism;”
I’m down with that.
“but that belief contradicts (I think obviously) the “state of nature” arguments of most philosophers trying to intellectually synthesize the social contract from first principles.”
Sigh.
“If we have some ethical absolutes, then however they might be defined we are born with those ethical constraints on our behavior, by definition. Some acts are right, and others are wrong. The prohibitions and laws against those acts are not a result of people giving up something they never had, and the rationale for the social contract is damaged, because one of its axiomatic first principles is not really a first principle at all: Ethical absolutes precede it.”
The fallacy of composition, Tony. Just because some principle are absolute does not mean all are absolute. The axiom of the social compact is based on the exchange of freedoms found in the state of nature for mutually derived benefit. Not all things (rights/freedoms) of value to be exchanged for mutually benefit are necessarily of equal value or like quality. The prohibition on murder as a protection for the right to life is not equivalent to the reasonable restrictions such as prohibiting defamation and incitement placed on the right to free speech. The right to life is an ethically absolute principle and our laws reflect that taking a life is excused under very narrow circumstances related to other primal absolute rights like the right to self-defense or a relative right like the right to defend others from imminent harm. The prohibitions on the right to free speech – which in the state of nature is absolute – are socially customary as our society considers defamation (lying) as malum in se and incitement as malum prohibatum for public (safety) policy concerns.