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.
@Dredd: we also know that ultimate catastrophe can be averted
No. We don’t know that. In fact, although this is not my field of expertise, what I have read suggests much of the disaster cannot be averted no matter how hard we may try because of the hysteresis, some of those island nations will be under water no matter what we do, even if we all died tomorrow. Certainly what we can plausibly do is a drop in the gallon of what would have to be done, so the moral question is no longer whether we should try to stop what is (probably) an inevitable catastrophe, but what is our moral responsibility to relieve the suffering after the inevitable catastrophe takes place.
As for the relevance of that argument to this thread; I think it is fairly far removed. This is a general thread about Ethical Relativism; not a specific thread about Global Warming; and hijacking a thread intended to discuss a philosophical point in order to discuss your pet peeve is, relativistically speaking, unethical.
Blouise, If you want information on litigation you would be better served asking someone who has actually practiced the law.
Gene you’re as tedious as the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Do you know anything about them? Ever practiced in a Federal, State or Municipal Court in any capacity? How about The Peoples Court? You overcompensate your total lack of practical experience w/ sanctimony and your mantra of logic. I’m playing w/ fire here since this is your thread and it’s cocktail hour. Try not to get too nasty. and, those fries will kill you. Hopefully there @ least sweet potato fries.
Tony C. 1, October 21, 2012 at 5:25 pm
@Dredd: I think it is funny how you can be dismissive of my comments as XYZ 101, while you apparently cannot think your way out of a room with an open door, since you keep asking me to provide solutions to your questions.
I reason from first principles. If you find my observations so obvious then fine, it should be equally as obvious that I must not be writing for you, and you need not respond.
============================================
Just trying to get you out of the 18th century when people philosophically contemplated killing people as you have been doing, into the current reality where killing nations is and will continue to be philosophically contemplated.
Somehow that seems to be less “yesterday”, more to the relevant points of today’s world, and besides you seem to be up to such a conversation.
Tony C. 1, October 21, 2012 at 5:18 pm
@Dredd: That depends on whether that sea level rise CAN be stopped, considering the fact that there is a 50-100 year hysteresis (time lag) in the control of global warming. (i.e. the next 50 years of global warming depend upon inputs already in our past.
—————————————————
Good point, in fact a great point.
The scientist in the video, David Roberts, made that point as well, albeit not about sea level rise.
That understanding may incriminate us a bit more in the sense that we can see it happening, we know that it will get worse axiomatically due to past behavior already in the pipe, but we also know that ultimate catastrophe can be averted IF WE CHANGE as an international community, that is, if we work feverishly together.
Our nation is 5% of the world’s population, but we consume 25% of its resources, and do way more than our share of that which is killing us.
Would we prosecute ourselves, or will we force the world to try to prosecute us?
See what I mean, this is serious and it does fairly bring up absolutism and ethical relativism along with the rest of it.
@Dredd: I think it is funny how you can be dismissive of my comments as XYZ 101, while you apparently cannot think your way out of a room with an open door, since you keep asking me to provide solutions to your questions.
I reason from first principles. If you find my observations so obvious then fine, it should be equally as obvious that I must not be writing for you, and you need not respond.
Gene
Are you accusing me of being a “propaganda troll” ? I hope not. Lot’s of people have agendas in blogging. I looked up the definition of propaganda and found that it involved lying by omission. I don’t do that.
I agree that having a defense lawyer is good. When I was criminally charged in Routt County Colorado without a written statement of probable cause I hired Bill Hibbard and he did get the charges dismissed. But what I needed was someone to defend my reputation and my property by filing a plaintiffs’ lawsuit and he said he couldn’t do that because it would hurt his law practice.
When I was arrested and detained for 4 months for civil contempt I wasn’t expecting it. I was told in Court that I didn’t have a right to an attorney. When I was arrested and detained without a criminal charge for 22 days I did have an attorney, a public defender, but I didn’t get to confer with him before the hearing. He asked that I be allowed a bail hearing but that was denied. This isn’t propaganda, it is in the transcripts. If I could afford an attorney I would hire one.
You don’t have to address my particular situation. Do you think that in general there is authority for courts to order that a person can’t represent themselves in Court and if so, under what situations do you think that should happen and what would the person do if they had a valid claim or legal problem and difficulty in getting an attorney?
@Dredd: That depends on whether that sea level rise CAN be stopped, considering the fact that there is a 50-100 year hysteresis (time lag) in the control of global warming. (i.e. the next 50 years of global warming depend upon inputs already in our past.
If it could be stopped, it depends on the relative value of stopping it. Many of the actions we demand others refrain from are actions we ourselves committed: Ireland was once covered by forests that acted as a carbon sink, and was clearcut for farming. After Ireland has benefited from that action, by what moral calculus do they get to demand Brazilians starve rather than do the same? We built an industrial nation on the back of astonishing amounts of pollution with coal and other materials, now that we are done we hypocritically castigate the Chinese for doing the same.
For Pacific Island nations, by what moral calculus is the survival of a few thousand more important than the survival of a few hundred thousand Brazilians?
I think it is immoral to demand others sacrifice to save us without making a plausibly fair trade in return.
In terms of Global Warming, I do believe the stakes are in the billions of lives, and some of these practices must be stopped, but that is all the more reason for our sacrifice in trade for their cooperation. It is not enough to for us to just set an example going forward, we (and other countries) have a moral obligation to reverse the effects of our own contributions to the problem over the last 120 years or so, contributions that benefited us at the expense of others. Those Pacific Islanders did not cause global warming, the Industrial Revolution did that.
Tony C. 1, October 21, 2012 at 4:59 pm
…
That seems confused to me. If a person’s right to continue living is conditional (and I think it is) then there is a deeper principle of “right” and “wrong” at work. What can that deeper principle be, other than it is justifiable (fair) to kill another person under certain circumstances?
I think that deeper principle is generally called “fairness,” in this case that a person’s acts can fairly render them without the moral right to continue living, or (equivalently) their acts can bestow upon another person the right to kill them.
…
=================================================
That is Killing People 101, an ancient concept.
But what of advanced notions we face in today’s world (pointed out in my early comments on this thread)?
Adapted, your statement would read:
That is what the nations of the world face now, and it will escalate to a point of madness if not dealt with soon.
Dredd, Although I love my wife and know she is honorable and intelligent, many people saw the blatant racism in short order. The problem was the Sentencing Guidelines were bipartisan, and spearheaded by O’Neill. Politicians never like to say they were wrong and certainly Dems couldn’t admit one of their patriarchs overreacted because he’s a f@cking Celtic fan! So, no pols tried to change them and it took a recent Supreme Court ruling..a few decades late, to right the wrong. Too late for the tens of thousands of poor inmates who served draconian sentences.
Gene,
My grandmother was a tiny Irish woman who had a powerful intellect and never realized it. She could talk you to death and always remain interesting. She encouraged me to read the huge stash of old books she had collected.
She collected antiques until the house was overflowing. Granddad first built shelves in every room, then built two large storage building to keep all her stuff. He finally said she ought to have a shop, so built her a nice shop out by the highway in front of their house. She ran that until she got too old. She was a giving person, and when I got married, offered us several things from the store to help us get our own home started. She also gave me three original Ansel Adams photographs. I had a heck of a time finding a frame shop willing to frame them for me. One frame shop guy said he was afraid to touch them.
My grandmother also sent all three of her sons to fight in WW-II. Two of them signed up on Monday, December 8, 1941. The youngest waited until he got out of high school to join the Army Air Corps. He went back and saw combat in Korea. All three of them came home more or less intact. Physically anyway.
@Blouise: That seems confused to me. If a person’s right to continue living is conditional (and I think it is) then there is a deeper principle of “right” and “wrong” at work. What can that deeper principle be, other than it is justifiable (fair) to kill another person under certain circumstances?
I think that deeper principle is generally called “fairness,” in this case that a person’s acts can fairly render them without the moral right to continue living, or (equivalently) their acts can bestow upon another person the right to kill them. That other person may be a person under attack, or an agent of the state, such as a policeman or prison executioner, on behalf of somebody murdered. The principle at play in such circumstances is fairness: If a person acts with the intent (or result) of ending a life, it is fair to take an action that will end their life.
That is the principle I think is inviolate; I do not think there are any ethical actions or moral actions which are not grounded in fairness. I do not think it is possible for a single act to be both ethical and fundamentally unfair to a participant; I think ethical acts are a subset of “fair” acts.
Tony C. 1, October 21, 2012 at 4:44 pm
…
The social contract can be predicated upon the ethical absolutes themselves, and promoting and protecting them. We band together in societies simply because there are those that would violate the ethical absolutes, and we consider it ethical to stop those people or punish those people by dint of our majority cooperative force, if we first describe the conditions under which such acts will be punished.
…
=====================================
That is Social Contract 101, but what of the advanced social contract concepts that deal with nations?
Your statement would read:
So how would that work with stopping the sea level from flooding Manhattan (CBS video up-thread), Washington D.C., or Pacific Island Nations?
@Gene: However, I will go further and say that if there are ethical absolutes, then I see no need for a ‘state of nature’ argument in the philosophy of the social contract. The social contract can be predicated upon the ethical absolutes themselves, and promoting and protecting them. We band together in societies simply because there are those that would violate the ethical absolutes, and we consider it ethical to stop those people or punish those people by dint of our majority cooperative force, if we first describe the conditions under which such acts will be punished.
Thus it need not be that we surrender some rights we had in a state of nature in order to enjoy the cooperative benefits of society; rather it is that one of the cooperative benefits of society is the better protection of what we believe was our absolute ethical rights all along, including in some hypothetical (never realized) state of nature, such as freedom from slavery, theft, rape and murder.
nick spinelli 1, October 21, 2012 at 4:29 pm
…
They were are disaster and are now history. We all know w/ what the road to hell is paved.
=========================================
One wonders, as your wife must have often, why others could not see the blatant racism, as you pointed out, and other anomalies in federal sentencing that, as you say, after horror upon horror was cast away.
I am afraid that global concepts of justice which must be developed, implemented, and practised yesterday will suffer the same fate, as will civilization.
And yes, graveyards large and small have been made with good intentions as have the road to hell.
“Lying for the lord” is a concept that seems to reek of ethical relativism fused with exceptionalism and who knows what else.
Several people up-thread have indicated that it is ok to do just about anything so long as certain fudge conditions exist.
This “lying for the lord” is a Mormon concept, but probably compatible with other religions too, and perhaps with comments by others up-thread:
(Ayn Rand: Patron Saint of The Plutocracy). How could one do this “fairly” or ethically, i.e. deceive people about coming catastrophe?
If the neoCon members of the Congress think global warming induced climate change is the greatest hoax ever fostered on humanity, why couldn’t they be morally, ethically, and legally right when they lie about it or are wrong about it?
My comments up-thread show that even CBS, a mainstream media entity, broadcasts that sea level rise on the East Coast of the U.S. is higher than anywhere else in the world.
Are they being “fair” or “ethical” to lie to their constituents, telling them that it is all a liberal hoax to keep power?
Nice straw man you’ve got there Nick.
1) Not all constructs are equal.
2) I said “mitigate” not “perfect”.
3) I nowhere indicated that careful construction was a panacea let alone a Holy Grail.
Seriously. Learn to argue better. That was just sad.
Now my fries are getting cold.
and now I must get dinner but will return ..
Thanks for the thread, Gene … great way to exercise the mind!
Gene, “Careful rule construction” was used when the Federal Sentencing guidelines were created in the 1980’s. My wife was her courts expert, attending regular seminars and lectures. Some very smart people put these guidelines together and trained Federal Judges and probation officers on how to implement these formulaic sentencing guidelines. The formulas were detailed and tedious. Just one example, counting cannabis plants instead of actual cannabis. A plant equalled X amount whether it were fully grown or 2 weeks old. The most notorious inequity were the guidelines on crack v powder cocaine, which was blatant racist. The history behind that inequity goes to the Len Bias death. Bias was a star basketball player from Maryland drafted #1 by the Celtics. Celebrating his draft Bias partied, smoking crack and exploded his heart. Tip O’Neill was a big Celtic fan. Paternalistically, he pushed through the tougher crack sentences which my wife said from the outset would eventually be ruled unconstitutional. Ironically, it was in a case originating from her district, The Western District of Wi.
These guidelines were so detailed by “careful rule construction”, your holy grail, that hardly anyone understood them. My wife had to explain them to attorneys on an almost daily basis. Few judges understood them. My wife lived and breathed them but it took constant education to keep up w/ the “formulas.” No one would argue these guidelines were the most thought out and detailed ever constructed. They were are disaster and are now history. We all know w/ what the road to hell is paved.
Tony C.,
“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?”
First, no, that is your implication based on your reasoning of fair play as an absolute. I submit that the absolute comes first and is part of the core (to borrow your word) … the fair play is a follow up based on the culture in which the individual lives.
And then, yes, there are moral acts that are unfair to somebody which is why society judges an individual’s actions and how an individual determines whether or not to take action. That process begins with an absolute followed by reasoning first by the individual and then by society. Fair play is part of the reasoning process, not the absolute.
Have a great lunch Gene! Great job.