fromtheright

Your thoughts?

<a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/printgw20020425.shtml" target="_blank">David Limbaugh column</a>

SLD

<a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20020424.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20020424.shtml</A>

Isn't this what you meant FTR?

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: SLD ]</p>

phaedrus

Umm...

1. politics forum?
2. Moral relativism ????????????

fromtheright

SLD,

You're right. My apologies to posters for any confusion I may have caused. I had posted the Will column on another board in another dicussion and simply copied the wrong one. Thanks.

SLD

The basic problem that I have with this article is that he, like a lot of conservatives, misunderstands the concept of moral relativism. Moral relativism is not the proposition that all moral viewpoints are equally valid. It is simply the premise that there is no absolute source for morals – no God up there saying “this is an absolute, this isn’t.” I think that as a practical matter, the idea of absolute source of morals being God, makes little or no sense. The immediate problem that comes to mind, is whose God are we talking about as the ultimate source of morals? Osama Bin Laden, I assure you, is not a moral relativist. Nor is that son of a bitch “unreasonable.” He is a quite rationale human being. However his version of absolute morality is a little different from David Limbaugh’s.

This is not to say that his viewpoint is acceptable to me. By no means. Because I do not recognize some God as a source of morality, does not mean I don’t have moral values which I believe are superior to others. If I were to meet up with that son of a bitch, I assure you that I would not try to reason or negotiate with him. Nor, for that matter would I take his surrender. I would simply kill him. Why? Because I believe that my values are superior to his and I have sworn to protect those values as they are embodied in the Constitution of the United States.

That being said, I do think there are some moral absolutes. A few years ago Scientific American published a small report on moral views around the world and found that there were indeed quite simple basics that all people seemed to agree on. Such things as taking other people’s possession, unjustified homicide, and a few others that I can’t think of were universally considered morally unacceptable. I think that these stem, not so much from a God, as from our own evolutionary heritage. We have been successful reproductively as a species because we have ingrained in us certain cooperative genes that give us at least some moral sense of right and wrong. I wish I could remember in what issue I read this article, but IIRC, it was not a stand alone piece, but a blurb repeating some other research published in another scientific journal.

Also, it’s a damn far stretch to claim that the totalitarian genocidal systems were somehow “secular humanist” ones. They most certainly were not. In fact, they were very much moral absolutists societies – but like Bin Laden they had different moral absolutes than Limbaugh’s.

OK, I'm off to stay up late and watch the Battle of Britain on Turner Classic Movies - damn, those Spitfires are still the best looking airplane ever.

SLD

fromtheright

I disagree with you as to moral relativism. Although there may be a strand that would state morality as you have, there are definitely those out there who would say that "all moral viewpoints are equally valid". If Osama's system of absolute morality is rational, then what makes your system superior to his, especially as it seems arguable that from an evolutionary standpoint (yes, I realize you are using that adjective differently than I am about to) his system is all about survival of the fittest or at least the meanest or "baddest"? If your system of morality is superior, what is the standard by which you judge superiority?

Also, I'm not sure that these "cooperative genes" have yet been mapped, though I confess to ignorance on the progress of that endeavor.

Well, back to reading the new Clarence Thomas biography.

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>

moon

An example of "moral relativism" is when you condemn massive U.S. terrorism in Central America, etc., while at the same time condemning terrorism ala al Queda.

An example of "moral clarity" is when you applaud U.S. terrorism in Central America, and name airports after the perpetrators, while condemning the terrorism committed against the U.S.

phaedrus

FTR/SLD

This recent thread should throw some light on the issue......
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000075" target="_blank">Is Relativism self-refuting?</a>

SLD

</strong>

No. FTR, that is the strawman conservative's argument against the concept. One of the leading "moral relativists" is Stanley Fish, former head of the English Department at Duke University, and now Dean of the University of Illinois at Chicago. He wrote a great article in the NYT about the concept and its relationship to Osama Bin Laden. Not all of it I agree with, but here is a link to a website reprint of the article:

<a href="http://humanities.psydeshow.org/political/fish-column.htm" target="_blank">Condemnation without Absolutes - Stanley Fish </a>

To quote from it:

"The only thing postmodern thought argues against is the hope of justifying our response to the attacks in universal terms that would be persuasive to everyone, including our enemies. Invoking the abstract notions of justice and truth to support our cause wouldn't be effective anyway because our adversaries lay claim to the same language. (No one declares himself to be an apostle of injustice.)"

I think that as a matter of simple fact, that is correct. That is also the predominant view of the idea of moral relativism. I would challenge you to find a serious post modernist thinker who holds to the strawman position that you and David Limbaugh have asserted. If so, find him and post him here. If there is one, I would, along with many of the post modernist thinkers, denounce such a person as an utter idiot.

Also, you should realize that the concept of Moral Relativism, is not a new one, but has been around as long as Greek Philosophy. However in Modern terms, it has been around primarily from David Hume's thoughts in the mid 1700's. Hume wrote in response to the view held by certain ministers that there was a certain "calculus" of morality. That somehow one could prove moral views in the same way that Newtonian science proved various physical actions. Hume utterly devastated such ideas. If there are moral absolutes, we could all agree on what was morally correct. If so, then we wouldn't even have terrorists like OBL, right? Or at least we could reason with them, since they are not insane. It is the fact that there are no absolutes which means we must fight for our own ideals. We will not achieve peace by convincing OBL that we are right and we shouldn't be attacked.

</strong>

Simple, I judge my system superior by the values that have been ingrained in me since childhood. I don't deny for a minute that others may rationally disagree with my values, but that doesn't stop me from believing in my values and fighting for them when appropriate - i.e. when others try to foist their very conflicting values on me. I do judge my values superior also because of the results achieved by our society (and by that I mean a lot of Western society - not just American). Our enlightenment ideals have resulted in the greatest civilization ever. We have used them to conquer disease and to put men on the moon. I think that without the freedoms we enjoy, many of these things would not be possible. That isn't to say that my values are superior in some sort of absolute sense. However, if your values are such that you wish to live in a medieval religious society that shuns technology and modern medicine in favor of a faith in god, then you can of course establish a Taliban regime in Afghanistan - provided enough people agree with you (which of course in reality is not going to happen). But Hey, if that's what floats your boat, then live in that society - just don't foist it on me.

</strong>

The entire genome has been mapped. However, I wouldn't think we would find specifically those genes responsible for our natural inclination to cooperate in the fight for survival - nevertheless it is clearly demonstrated in our shared communal heritage.

Ehhhhwww.

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: SLD ]</p>