Moral Relativism Moral Relativism Comparatively ReconstructedComparatively Reconstructed

Mary I. BockoverMary I. Bockover

ProfessorProfessor

Humboldt State UniversityHumboldt State University

Overall SectionsOverall Sections

Moral RelativismMoral Relativism Incommensurable ConflictIncommensurable Conflict American Involvement in the War in IraqAmerican Involvement in the War in Iraq

Moral Relativism[& The Philosophy of Mind]

“Moral relativism” is the view that there isno objective “universal” moral standard todecide the truth of moral judgments, or toresolve conflicts between them.

A false dichotomy distinguishes betweentwo things in a way that makes them seemmutually exclusive.

The distinction between the “universal” andthe “diverse” in ethics is a false dichotomy.

Even incommensurable moral judgmentsarise from a common range of consciousnessthat can be realized in various ways, hence,morality can be seen as both universal anddiverse.

If values and the moral judgments connectedwith them conflict, there is no objective wayto resolve the conflict.

We can appeal to reason to addressproblems of consistency (or the lack of it),but reason alone cannot resolve conflicts ofvalue.

Whether aesthetic or moral, values areessentially and irreducibly normative and socannot be reduced to reason or belief.

My believing X is wrong is not sufficient tocapture the kind of conscious appraisal thatgoes into my moral judgment that it iswrong; for my moral judgment entails aneven more basic value that is experienced asa good-in-itself.

Human beings have a range ofconsciousness that comes to be conditionedby time and culture, and that we identifyafter the fact as “cognitive”, “affective”,“aesthetic”, “moral”, “spiritual”, and soforth.

We distinguish between these categoriesthrough a somewhat artificial and arbitraryact of reflection, a second order analysismotivated by the desire to understand ourown nature.

Values, Principles, & JudgmentsValues, Principles, & Judgments

A moral value is entailed in more specific moral judgments A moral value is entailed in more specific moral judgments The value can be reflectively articulated so to constitute a The value can be reflectively articulated so to constitute a

“first principle”, e.g., of an ethical theory“first principle”, e.g., of an ethical theory A “first principle” articulates the A “first principle” articulates the most fundamentalmost fundamental value of a value of a

particular viewparticular view Compare the utilitarian principle (of utility) with the Compare the utilitarian principle (of utility) with the

Aristotlelian principle of Aristotlelian principle of eudaemoniaeudaemonia

Both are translated as “happiness”Both are translated as “happiness”

Moral theory is a second order enterprise,but the mere recognition and discussionabout moral value is too.

Confucius did not give the world a theory,for example, but he did offer the value of“harmonious human activity” expressedthrough the interrelated concepts of li andren.

Consider a greeting, or a religious act ofdevotion: each involves different actions thatembody the same kind of conscious aim...

The Inherent Unity of ConsciousnessThe Inherent Unity of Consciousness

Unity between subject and objectUnity between subject and object Unity between the various features of consciousness that we distinguish after Unity between the various features of consciousness that we distinguish after

the factthe fact E.g., between cognitive, moral, aesthetic, religious, ways of being E.g., between cognitive, moral, aesthetic, religious, ways of being

conscious…conscious… Unity of consciousness is “universal” in being characteristic of human Unity of consciousness is “universal” in being characteristic of human

consciousness in general, but it does consciousness in general, but it does notnot provide the ground for objectively provide the ground for objectively resolving moral conflictresolving moral conflict

Moral Relativism&

Incommensurable Conflict

An adequate account of moral relativism canbest be given in light of incommensurableconflict.

On this level values have come to bemutually exclusive in a certain context , thatis, where one value can only be held at theexpense of the other.

When values do come into incommensurableconflict – when circumstances demand thatone can only be held at the expense of theother – then we must acknowledge that theonly arbiter to decide which has moralpriority is oneself.

“Resolving” the conflict is only achievedsubjectively, through prioritizing whichvalue is superior.

In the end, the question is: which value doesone value more, at least in thiscircumstance?

This choice cannot be made without beggingthe question of which value is objectivelysuperior.

Why a Moral Conflict Becomes IncommensurableWhy a Moral Conflict Becomes Incommensurable

First, there are so many values that can be the First, there are so many values that can be the mostmost fundamental (first) principles for those who believe in them fundamental (first) principles for those who believe in them

Second, circumstances are such that one of these values is Second, circumstances are such that one of these values is taken to have moral priority by one person, group, or culture, taken to have moral priority by one person, group, or culture, etc., and it cannot be held at the same time as another taken to etc., and it cannot be held at the same time as another taken to have moral priority by another person, group, or culture have moral priority by another person, group, or culture

And third, the normative nature of moral judgment is such that And third, the normative nature of moral judgment is such that deciding which value is superior can only appeal back to what deciding which value is superior can only appeal back to what is valued instead of a common standard which could is valued instead of a common standard which could objectively determine their truthobjectively determine their truth

The Conflict in Iraq

People of good will can hold differing, andeven incommensurable views on thissubject.

The standoff in the American case this timestarted after President Bush announced in2003 that the U.S.A. would take almostunilateral responsibility for protecting itselfand the world against Iraq’s continuedmanufacture of weapons of mass destruction.

The big question is whether there wasenough evidence to believe that they werestill being manufactured in March of 2003.

The Bush administration said there was, aclaim that the French and Germans denied,and that the 911 Commission later found tobe false.

At that time, the American people did notknow that either Bush was lying to them, orthat Bush himself was being lied to or misledby military intelligence.

Even if this claim ended up being true,however, another condition was needed forthe invasion to be legal, and some would saymoral. The existence of WMD would haveto constitute a direct threat to our nationalsecurity (and this would also need proof).

Some Reasons for WarSome Reasons for War“Support our Troops”“Support our Troops”

Clear proof that WMD Clear proof that WMD hadhad been manufactured been manufactured Clear proof that Iraq Clear proof that Iraq hadhad capacity to deliver them capacity to deliver them A dramatically conflicted relationship between Iraq A dramatically conflicted relationship between Iraq

(under Hussein) and the U.S.A. (since George Bush, (under Hussein) and the U.S.A. (since George Bush, Sr.)Sr.)

Iraq’s contempt for the United NationsIraq’s contempt for the United Nations Evidence gathered by the Security Council of Iraqi Evidence gathered by the Security Council of Iraqi

terrorist cellsterrorist cells

Others in the U.S.A. said that fear, notreason, turned the alleged production ofWMD into a national threat; that invasion inthe name of national “defense” was just anexcuse to fulfill another agenda.

Not everyone agreed with Bush’s decision,that is, even before the rhetoric shifted to ourprotecting Iraqi political freedom (instead ofdefending our own) to accommodate thelack of evidence that WMD were still beingmade.

Evidence (here lacking) of WMD productionalone does not legally justify invadinganother country: there are many countrieswith WMD and the clear capacity to deliverthem, but we do not invade them in thename of national defense.

This capacity must pose a clear and directthreat to the invading country in order for itto be justified, and our fear – legitimate ornot – was critical to our feeling threatened.

Opposed to the large majority of Americanpeople who supported President Bush’sdecision to invade Iraq, was a contingent ofAmericans who believed that peace was thepreferable option, at least at the time.

Some Reasons for PeaceSome Reasons for Peace“Peace is Patriotic”“Peace is Patriotic”

On principle or on religious grounds, believing that On principle or on religious grounds, believing that the inevitable loss of innocent life – though not the inevitable loss of innocent life – though not intentional – cannot be justified even if the goal is to intentional – cannot be justified even if the goal is to remove a despot who intentionally does even worse remove a despot who intentionally does even worse

Like the French and Germans, there were also Like the French and Germans, there were also Americans who thought there was not enough Americans who thought there was not enough evidence that WMD were still being produced to evidence that WMD were still being produced to make the national defense argument succeedmake the national defense argument succeed

Still others held that even if there were, war was not Still others held that even if there were, war was not justified justified at the timeat the time because of the lack of because of the lack of international support international support

The United States’ Image AbroadThe United States’ Image Abroad

Failure to get greater U.N. support and to find evidence of WMDFailure to get greater U.N. support and to find evidence of WMD Failure to provide adequate support for the many innocent Iraqis harmed Failure to provide adequate support for the many innocent Iraqis harmed

by the warby the war Critical differences in value between Iraqi culture and ours, e.g, the value Critical differences in value between Iraqi culture and ours, e.g, the value

of political freedom that we take to be an “inalienable” and “universal” of political freedom that we take to be an “inalienable” and “universal” human human rightright derives from a Western concept of person that most of the derives from a Western concept of person that most of the world, including much of Iraq, does not obviously shareworld, including much of Iraq, does not obviously share

Failure to have a clear exit strategy (and this administration has said that Failure to have a clear exit strategy (and this administration has said that U.S. armed forces will likely remain in Iraq for at least a decade) U.S. armed forces will likely remain in Iraq for at least a decade)

Iraq is the second largest untapped oil source in the world, and that the Iraq is the second largest untapped oil source in the world, and that the American way of life has made no great strides to become less dependent American way of life has made no great strides to become less dependent on fossil fuel (on fossil fuel (oil factoroil factor argument) argument)

I have described the moral scenario in Iraq in terms of anincommensurable conflict of values – between maintaining worldpeace and protecting political freedom – that could not besimultaneously held at the time the war was declared.

What has been shown is that people of good will can come tohave conflicting, even incommensurable values in such a context,and can also change their minds along with changes incircumstance.

This shift in moral priority occurs when a different valuebecomes the most important, and we have seen this is contextdependent, for example, depending upon whether the “facts”supporting the value are true or really facts.

As moral agents concerned with the world we live in, wedevelop our values through learning the facts, and also throughlearning about the values of others, even those who are verydifferent from us. That is all we have, but it is no smallaccomplishment.

The EndThe End