Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Moral Relativism - Part 3

If someone's beliefs point to some type of morality, then I have no business judging or interfering. But many people seem to actually put the need for some kind of morality ahead of the existence of a particular system, and furthermore require that the criteria of right and wrong are universal and unambiguous. They claim that without a system of guidelines, everyone will sink to the worst depths of depravity, and every society will tear itself apart. They teach everyone to fear and distrust anyone who doesn't avow at least some morality, and that anything is better than nothing in this respect. This attitude goes far beyond a loyalty to their own doctrine of morality, and firmly asserts that even if all other particular beliefs turn out to be false, some other morality must save us from the war of all against all; the very idea of moral relativism must be a logical contradiction and so-called relativists must be fools.

Morality is supposed to be a system for guiding behavior. Without some explicit brand of morality, what would be left to guide a person's actions? We still have reason, emotion, social conventions, and some would claim free will and an internal moral compass. These may not add up to a universal system, but it is certainly some kind of means for guiding behavior. Someone who demands some further moral standard is saying not just "I have extra/alternative criteria" but "those criteria are not enough". Usually, the accusation comes in a stronger form, that "those criteria are worthless or even harmful". Another angle is "even if those criteria are enough to keep the peace, they're just a soulless copy of true morality". I could address each claim individually, but I'll just summarize that yes, it's tough being ethical and responsible, nobody does it perfectly, and I also don't think just any given moral system gives life meaning, even if some particular system might. In other words, it's not true that anything is better than "nothing", even if some particular thing might be better.

On the other side, young people seem to look to moral relativism as some sort of refuge from any responsibility that excuses them from any sort of social judgment, and others judge relativism along these lines. I consider such an attitude insane and irresponsible, and not a valid conclusion from the premise of moral relativism. However, not everybody window shops for a nice conclusion and picks a justification to match. I'd love to move the discussion away from emotional outrage, fear, and disgust and towards clarity and understanding. I'd also love for atheists to stop clinging to universal morality when they can't make a coherent argument for it.

No comments: