Moral relativism
It is common today to justify various customs, beliefs and behaviours on the basis that "we" need to accept cultural differences. Academics call this "moral relativism" or "cultural relativism." (These two phrases in fact mean quite different things, but to keep things simple, I deal with them in their common elements.)
In other words, "we" cannot condemn anyone else's moral values because they have a different culture than "we" and so their beliefs will be different than ours.
I put the "we" in quotes because it is interesting that that the requirement for tolerance is always self-directed. Is it not a contradiction, if relativism requires some to accept the practices of others, that "they" do not have to accept "our" practices? Only "we" have to accept "theirs."
Moreover, if there are no universal moral truths, then the moral of cultural tolerance is itself relative and I need heed it no more than, say, I need to worship in a particular way.
What if “their” cultural values expressly call for the destruction of my cultural values and my entire culture? Am I required to acquiesce in my own destruction?
The fact is that if there are no universal moral values, then there is no point in aspiring to any moral value at all. If everything is right, then everything is also wrong.
Values and ethics must by their nature be built up from basic assumptions (as must mathematics and all science). But the fact that there are underlying or even explicit assumptions, makes the practice and expression of those values no less meaningful.
"Good" is that which upholds human life, human freedom and human potential.
While there are animal rights activists and environmental extremists, they are aberrations. If you think you believe animals have equal rights to life as humans, apply this simple test:
A bear has hold of your infant daughter and is about to rip her throat out. A man with a gun is preparing to shoot the bear to save your daughter. Do you tackle the man to save the bear, sacrificing your daughter? If not then you value your daughter's life more than the bear's.
Now consider if the bear is one of an endangered species of bear. Do you still let the man shoot the bear?
And what if the bear is the last of its kind? Do you still let the man shoot the bear?
Now, consider that it is not your daughter, but the daughter of a stranger. Is only your daughter more valuable than the life of a bear or are all daughter's lives more precious?
Taking a cue from relativism, what if the infant was the daughter of an animal rights activist who you knew would try to interfere with the shooting of the bear. Would you try to prevent the activist from sacrificing her own daughter? Or would you stand aside and let her tackle the shooter out of respect for her values?
Human life, human freedom, human potential. These are the foundations of modern Western values and almost all of the moral disputes internal to Western culture are disputes about how to achieve one or another aspects of these three.
With these three we can assert many universal moral truths:
Premeditated murder for profit is always wrong, at every place and in every cultural context, whether the members of that culture recognize this truth or not.
I used daughters in my example for a reason.
Enslaving people is always wrong, at every place and in every cultural context. It is wrong for "us" and it is wrong for every "them."
Systematically and legally forcing women to remain in their houses unless permitted and accompanied by a male is a form of slavery. Even if it could be demonstrated that 100% of the women so enslaved would vote to continue their bondage, it would remain wrong. If the subjugation is voluntary, then remove all legal and social constraints and allow those remaining in their houses to do so of free will. But there can be no legal consequences, no retribution for any woman who might change her mind.
The mere fact that the subjugation of women is an article of faith for some does not in any way mitigate its abhorrent nature. The fact that any one such group is subject to other persecutions or biases in no way reduces the moral outrage of their subjugation of fellow human beings.
Other cultures condone the burning of brides who present insufficient dowry, who engaged in intercourse out of wedlock, or for a variety of other customary reasons.
But a moral culture, a "good" culture, will recognize the evil in burning a living human and will confront this evil.
It has been pointed out to me by relativists that Western culture includes the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church persecutes women by not letting them be priests or by forbidding abortion.
The difference is that no women is forced to be a member of the Catholic Church. The Church may frown upon abortion, but it cannot stone to death a woman who receives one. The Catholic Church, to survive in Western culture, was forced to give up its power to compel.
This is not, however, to say that Western culture is free of moral defect. Western culture in fact still practices an adapted form of partial slavery in many of its communities.
If you take a person and require that person to work part of every day with no compensation, you are confiscating part of that person's labour. It is reasonable to assume that no free person will voluntarily consent to this confiscation and hence for the period of time that is worked without compensation without consent what is being practiced is a rough analog for slavery.
This is exactly what occurs when a woman employed in a job identical to that of a male co-worker, is paid less than the male. If the only or even primary, distinction is gender and not the value or quality of the work, then the female is being enslaved in direct proportion to the compensation not paid.
It may well be that another culture would view this differently. Some would observe the situation and proclaim the female should be grateful for any pay, or to be allowed to work at all. But just because it can be cast in culturally relative terms makes it no less immoral.
Human life. Human freedom. Human potential.
On a moral scale, some cultures are better than others, or at least some cultural practices are morally right and some are morally wrong.
Western culture is a long way from perfection, but at least it has within it the seeds of its own "salvation." One way to read the story of Western civilization is to read the inexorable, if sometimes tragic, move to ever higher levels of moral rightness.
The point of the civil rights movement is not that it was necessary. It is that it was possible. And beyond possible, that it experienced major victories.
Enslavement in various modes, oppression and exploitation, murder legalized and systematic, deprivations of life, liberty and property -- these things are not remarkable in human history. They are the pith and substance of our specie’s time on earth.
What is remarkable is the throwing off of chains, the recognition of the evil of these constant stains on our existence.
The enlightenments we have yet to achieve are many. But we have already acknowledged the foundations that inevitably lead to those enlightenments. As a society or as individuals we may strain against the transition, but our own acknowledged values will force us to make the transition nevertheless.
|
