{"id":1088,"date":"2007-02-11T20:02:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-11T20:02:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/2007\/02\/11\/moral-relativism-2\/"},"modified":"2007-02-11T20:02:00","modified_gmt":"2007-02-11T20:02:00","slug":"moral-relativism-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/2007\/02\/11\/moral-relativism-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Moral Relativism"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"text-align: left\">Despite its popularity, moral relativism, especially when it&#8217;s<br \/>politically motivated, is a confused and often pretty poisonous point of<br \/>view. Here&#8217;s the transcript from an Australian radio interview I did on the subject.<\/p>\n<p>Relativism was in the news recently along with female circumcision,<br \/>which involves cutting off parts of a woman&#8217;s genitalia, including her<br \/>clitoris. Some Sudanese people routinely practice female circumcision on<br \/>young girls. It&#8217;s part of their tradition. But many Westerners are<br \/>horrified. Female circumcision, they say, is cruel life-blighting<br \/>surgery. It&#8217;s morally wrong.<\/p>\n<p>Now it&#8217;s here that the relativist steps in. &#8216;Ah, wrong.&#8217; They say.<br \/>&#8216;Wrong for you, perhaps. But you&#8217;re assuming that your truth is the only<br \/>truth. In fact what&#8217;s true for you is false for those Sudanese people.<br \/>There&#8217;s no objective fact of the matter as to which moral point of view<br \/>is correct. All moral perspectives are equally valid.&#8217; &#8216;And so&#8217;, says<br \/>the relativist, sternly pointing their finger at you, &#8216;it&#8217;s wrong of you<br \/>to judge&#8217;.<\/p>\n<p>As I say, this sort of relativism is pretty popular in certain circles.<br \/>Indeed, to reject it is to risk being branded politically incorrect, or<\/div>\n<p>worse. But the fact is that this brand of moral relativism is fashionable,<br \/>politically correct baloney. Here are four reasons why.<\/p>\n<div style=\"text-align: left\">First, for us Westerners to think that what&#8217;s right or wrong is<br \/>ultimately not just a matter of opinion, but a matter of objective fact,<br \/>is not to assume that we must have unique and privileged access to those<br \/>facts. Sure, in the past, we&#8217;ve often just arrogantly<br \/>assumed that we know best, and that we have the right to force our<br \/>particular moral point of view down everyone else&#8217;s throat. The church<br \/>has had a particularly poor track record in this respect. Of course<br \/>we were wrong to assume that. We now realize that we<br \/>should be more open-minded and tolerant. We know we get it wrong.<br \/>We know that there can often be a great deal to learn from other<br \/>cultures. But of course we can embrace all this good, liberal stuff<br \/>without signing up to moral relativism. To say that there&#8217;s an objective<br \/>fact of the matter about whether or not female circumcision is wrong is<br \/>not to assume that our Western opinion is inevitably the right one.<br \/>Those who reject relativism need not be jack-booted bullies intent on<br \/>ramming their beliefs down everyone else&#8217;s throat.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the relativist who points a finger at the Westerner who judges<br \/>female circumcision to be wrong and says &#8216;It&#8217;s wrong of you to judge&#8217;<br \/>ends up condemning themselves. For of course they are doing exactly what<br \/>they are saying you shouldn&#8217;t be doing. They are judging you, and saying<br \/>that you are doing something morally wrong! So all that politically<br \/>correct finger wagging is downright hypocritical.<\/p>\n<p>Third, relativists tend to apply their relativism pretty inconsistently.<br \/>Take some remote forest tribe, for example, that does something that we<br \/>Westerners think barbaric and wrong. &#8220;You shouldn&#8217;t judge&#8221; says the<br \/>relativist. &#8216;In their culture, this sort of behaviour is perfectly<br \/>proper. And their opinion is just as &#8216;true&#8217; as yours.&#8217; But of course, if<br \/>some big multinational comes in and hacks down the forest and kicks out<br \/>its inhabitants, the relativist will be down on them like a ton of<br \/>bricks. &#8216;That&#8217;s wrong&#8217; they&#8217;ll say. But of course they can&#8217;t say that,<br \/>can they? If they are going to be true to their relativism, then they<br \/>have to say that if the corporate culture deems it acceptable to destroy<br \/>the rainforest and barbeque its inhabitants, then for them it is<br \/>acceptable, and who are we to judge?<\/p>\n<p>Finally, notice that it&#8217;s only if we reject moral relativism that we are<br \/>free to promote tolerance and open-mindedness as universal virtues. Take<br \/>some religious culture that thinks it okay to be deeply intolerant. The<br \/>relativist is going to have to say that, hey, if these religious zealots<br \/>think it right to chop up those with whom they disagree, then for them<br \/>it is right, and who are we to judge. The relativist can&#8217;t consistently<br \/>condemn the intolerance of others. It&#8217;s only those who reject relativism<br \/>that are free to do that.<\/p>\n<p>So the truth is that relativism really doesn&#8217;t have much going for it.<br \/>We can be good, right-on liberals without embracing relativism. And, at its<br \/>worst, relativism is politically correct baloney of a rather nasty sort.<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Despite its popularity, moral relativism, especially when it&#8217;spolitically motivated, is a confused and often pretty poisonous point ofview. Here&#8217;s the transcript from an Australian radio interview I did on the subject. Relativism was in the news recently along with female circumcision,which involves cutting off parts of a woman&#8217;s genitalia, including herclitoris. Some Sudanese people routinely [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[136],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1088","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-moral-relativism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1088","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1088"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1088\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1088"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1088"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1088"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}