Download Document

A Comparative Reconstruction of
Moral Relativism
Mary I. Bockover
Professor
Humboldt State University
Arcata, California
United States of America
Revised 6-06
Overall Sections



Moral Relativism
Incommensurable Conflict
American Involvement in the War in Iraq
Moral Relativism
[& The Philosophy of Mind]
“Moral relativism” is the view that there is
no objective “universal” moral standard to
decide the truth of moral judgments, or to
resolve conflicts between them.
“Moral Relativism” traditionally resulted from a debate that took the
universal and the diverse to be mutually exclusive – i.e., either
morality is universal or it is (culturally) relative, but not both.
“Moral Relativism” traditionally resulted from a debate that took the
universal and the diverse to be mutually exclusive – i.e., either
morality is universal or it is (culturally) relative, but not both.
the philosophical counterpart to a debate in the social sciences that contrasted
“nature” and “nurture” in the same mutually exclusive way
“Moral Relativism” traditionally resulted from a debate that took the
universal and the diverse to be mutually exclusive – i.e., either
morality is universal or it is (culturally) relative, but not both.
the philosophical counterpart to a debate in the social sciences that contrasted
“nature” and “nurture” in the same mutually exclusive way
the distinction between the “universal” and the “diverse” in ethics is a false
dichotomy; morality can be both universal and diverse
“Moral Relativism” traditionally resulted from a debate that took the
universal and the diverse to be mutually exclusive – i.e., either
morality is universal or it is (culturally) relative, but not both.
the philosophical counterpart to a debate in the social sciences that contrasted
“nature” and “nurture” in the same mutually exclusive way
the distinction between the “universal” and the “diverse” in ethics is a false
dichotomy; morality can be both universal and diverse
moral consciousness, the normative “ground” from which moral judgment
grows is universal
“Moral Relativism” traditionally resulted from a debate that took the
universal and the diverse to be mutually exclusive – i.e., either
morality is universal or it is (culturally) relative, but not both.
the philosophical counterpart to a debate in the social sciences that contrasted
“nature” and “nurture” in the same mutually exclusive way
the distinction between the “universal” and the “diverse” in ethics is a false
dichotomy; morality can be both universal and diverse
moral consciousness, the normative “ground” from which moral judgment
grows is universal
moral judgment is relative despite this common ground, or will depend on what
is valued (even within the same cultural context this can vary dramatically)
“Moral Relativism” traditionally resulted from a debate that took the
universal and the diverse to be mutually exclusive – i.e., either
morality is universal or it is (culturally) relative, but not both.
the philosophical counterpart to a debate in the social sciences that contrasted
“nature” and “nurture” in the same mutually exclusive way
the distinction between the “universal” and the “diverse” in ethics is a false
dichotomy; morality can be both universal and diverse
moral consciousness, the normative “ground” from which moral judgment
grows is universal
moral judgment is relative despite this common ground, or will depend on what
is valued (even within the same cultural context this can vary dramatically)
Moral consciousness is too general to resolve conflict.
More generally, distinctions can be made
within the range of human consciousness: in
different “ways” – rational, moral, aesthetic,
spiritual – that we can exp erience ourselves
and the world around us.
My “believing” X is wrong is not sufficient
to capture the kind of conscious appraisal
that goes into my mo ral judgment that it is
wrong: my judgment entails an even more
basic moral value that is experienced as a
good-in-itself.
Moral Values, Judgments, Principles & Truth
Moral Values, Judgments, Principles & Truth

A moral value is entailed in more specific moral judgments
Moral Values, Judgments, Principles & Truth


A moral value is entailed in more specific moral judgments
Moral judgment deems that some value should be put into
practice, or some practice stopped that is in violation of it or is
based on some other competing value
Moral Values, Judgments, Principles & Truth



A moral value is entailed in more specific moral judgments
Moral judgment deems that some value should be put into
practice, or some practice stopped that is in violation of it or is
based on some other competing value
Ordinarily what we value the most is not reflectively identified
and defined; the work of (second-order) ethics
Moral Values, Judgments, Principles & Truth




A moral value is entailed in more specific moral judgments
Moral judgment deems that some value should be put into
practice, or some practice stopped that is in violation of it or is
based on some other competing value
Ordinarily what we value the most is not reflectively identified
and defined; the work of (second-order) ethics
A moral value can be reflectively articulated so to constitute a
“first principle”, e.g., of an ethical theory
Moral Values, Judgments, Principles & Truth





A moral value is entailed in more specific moral judgments
Moral judgment deems that some value should be put into
practice, or some practice stopped that is in violation of it or is
based on some other competing value
Ordinarily what we value the most is not reflectively identified
and defined; the work of (second-order) ethics
A moral value can be reflectively articulated so to constitute a
“first principle”, e.g., of an ethical theory
A “first principle” articulates the most fundamental value of a
particular view, e.g., “happiness”, “freedom”, “benevolence”
Moral Values, Judgments, Principles & Truth






A moral value is entailed in more specific moral judgments
Moral judgment deems that some value should be put into
practice, or some practice stopped that is in violation of it or is
based on some other competing value
Ordinarily what we value the most is not reflectively identified
and defined; the work of (second-order) ethics
A moral value can be reflectively articulated so to constitute a
“first principle”, e.g., of an ethical theory
A “first principle” articulates the most fundamental value of a
particular view, e.g., “happiness”, “freedom”, “benevolence”
Moral judgments are value-judgments, and are relative because
there is no independent, objective standard that can determine
their truth or resolve conflicts between them
Moral Relativism
&
Incommensurable Conflict
An adequate account of moral relativism can
best be given in light of incommensurable
conflict: a conflict between moral judgments.
On this level (entailed) moral values have
come to be mutually exclusive in a certain
context, that is, where one value can only be
held at the expense of the other.
Why a Moral Conflict Becomes Incommensurable
Why a Moral Conflict Becomes Incommensurable

First, there are so many values that can be the most
fundamental (first) principle for those who believe in them
Why a Moral Conflict Becomes Incommensurable


First, there are so many values that can be the most fundamental (first)
principle for those who believe in them
Second, circumstances are such that one of these values is judged to have
moral priority by one person, group, or culture, etc., and this conflicts with
another value judged to have moral priority by another person, group, or
culture
Why a Moral Conflict Becomes Incommensurable



First, there are so many values that can be the most fundamental (first)
principle for those who believe in them
Second, circumstances are such that one of these values is judged to have
moral priority by one person, group, or culture, etc., and this conflicts with
another value judged to have moral priority by another person, group, or
culture
And third, the normative nature of moral judgment is such that deciding
which value is superior can only appeal back to what is valued instead of a
common standard which could objectively determine their truth
The Problem of Moral Incommensurability
The Problem of Moral Incommensurability
•
Moral consciousness is the universal ground from which moral value
grows; but paradoxically also supplies the ground from which moral
difference, even incommensurable conflict, takes root
The Problem of Moral Incommensurability
•
•
Moral consciousness is the universal ground from which moral value
grows; but paradoxically also supplies the ground from which moral
difference, even incommensurable conflict, takes root
There is no way to get outside of one’s own “values system” to judge
which view is ultimately right or wrong, better or worse, without begging
the question of what should be valued the most
The Problem of Moral Incommensurability
•
•
•
Moral consciousness is the universal ground from which moral value
grows; but paradoxically also supplies the ground from which moral
difference, even incommensurable conflict, takes root
There is no way to get outside of one’s own “values system” to judge
which view is ultimately right or wrong, better or worse, without begging
the question of what should be valued the most
Objective arguments can only be made based on whether the reasons used
to justify putting some value into practice are consistent, or whether the
supporting facts are sound
The Conflict in Iraq
People of good will can hold differing, and
even incommensurable views on this
subject.
The standoff in the American case this time
started after President Bush announced in
2003 that the U.S.A. would take almost
unilateral responsibility for protecting itself
and the world against Iraq’s continued
manufacture of weapons of mass destruction.
Some Reasons for the War
“Support our Troops”
Some Reasons for the War
“Support our Troops”

Clear proof that WMD had been manufactured
Some Reasons for the War
“Support our Troops”


Clear proof that WMD had been manufactured
Clear proof that Iraq had capacity to deliver them
Some Reasons for the War
“Support our Troops”



Clear proof that WMD had been manufactured
Clear proof that Iraq had capacity to deliver them
A dramatically conflicted relationship between Iraq
(under Hussein) and the U.S.A. (since George Bush,
Sr.)
Some Reasons for the War
“Support our Troops”




Clear proof that WMD had been manufactured
Clear proof that Iraq had capacity to deliver them
A dramatically conflicted relationship between Iraq
(under Hussein) and the U.S.A. (since George Bush,
Sr.)
Iraq’s contempt for the United Nations
Some Reasons for the War
“Support our Troops”





Clear proof that WMD had been manufactured
Clear proof that Iraq had capacity to deliver them
A dramatically conflicted relationship between Iraq
(under Hussein) and the U.S.A. (since George Bush,
Sr.)
Iraq’s contempt for the United Nations
Evidence gathered by the Security Council of Iraqi
terrorist cells
Evidence (here lacking) of WMD production
alone does not legally justify invading
another country: there are many countries
with WMD and the clear capacity to deliver
them, but we do not invade them in the
name of national defense.
This capacity must pose a clear and direct
threat to the invading country in order for it
to be justified, and our fear – legitimate or
not – was critical to our feeling threatened.
Some Reasons against the War
“Peace is Patriotic”
Some Reasons against the War
“Peace is Patriotic”

On principle or on religious grounds, believing that the
inevitable loss of innocent life – though not intentional –
cannot be justified even if the goal is to remove a despot who
intentionally does even worse
Some Reasons against the War
“Peace is Patriotic”


On principle or on religious grounds, believing that the
inevitable loss of innocent life – though not intentional –
cannot be justified even if the goal is to remove a despot who
intentionally does even worse
Like the French and Germans, many Americans also thought
there was not enough evidence that WMD were still being
produced to make the national defense argument succeed
Some Reasons against the War
“Peace is Patriotic”



On principle or on religious grounds, believing that the
inevitable loss of innocent life – though not intentional –
cannot be justified even if the goal is to remove a despot who
intentionally does even worse
Like the French and Germans, many Americans also thought
there was not enough evidence that WMD were still being
produced to make the national defense argument succeed
Still others held that even if there were, war was not justified
at the time because of the lack of international support
Critique Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq
Critique Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq

Failure to get greater U.N. support and to find evidence of WMD
Critique Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq


Failure to get greater U.N. support and to find evidence of WMD
Failure to provide adequate support for the many innocent Iraqis harmed by
the war
Critique Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq



Failure to get greater U.N. support and to find evidence of WMD
Failure to provide adequate support for the many innocent Iraqis harmed by
the war
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” human
right derives from a Western concept of person that most of the world,
including much of Iraq, does not obviously share
Critique Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq




Failure to get greater U.N. support and to find evidence of WMD
Failure to provide adequate support for the many innocent Iraqis harmed by
the war
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” human
right derives from a Western concept of person that most of the world,
including much of Iraq, does not obviously share
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)
Critique Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq





Failure to get greater U.N. support and to find evidence of WMD
Failure to provide adequate support for the many innocent Iraqis harmed by
the war
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” human
right derives from a Western concept of person that most of the world,
including much of Iraq, does not obviously share
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)
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 on
fossil fuel (oil factor argument)
Support Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq
Support Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq

Given that legal and moral justifications are related, but distinct, the U.S.
invasion of Iraq in 2003 could, after the fact, be deemed illegal but could also
be deemed moral or even obligatory on different grounds
Support Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq


Given that legal and moral justifications are related, but distinct, the U.S.
invasion of Iraq in 2003 could, after the fact, be deemed illegal but could also
be deemed moral or even obligatory on different grounds
One reason the U.N. was established after WWII was to keep despots like
Hitler and Stalin from coming to power and reeking havoc on the world
again; no longer a legal justification for war but still could be a moral one
Support Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq



Given that legal and moral justifications are related, but distinct, the U.S.
invasion of Iraq in 2003 could, after the fact, be deemed illegal but could also
be deemed moral or even obligatory on different grounds
One reason the U.N. was established after WWII was to keep despots like
Hitler and Stalin from coming to power and reeking havoc on the world
again; no longer a legal justification for war but still could be a moral one
So it was argued that removing Hussein was morally justified, as long as
innocent civilian life was not intentionally sacrificed to do it
Support Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq




Given that legal and moral justifications are related, but distinct, the U.S.
invasion of Iraq in 2003 could, after the fact, be deemed illegal but could also
be deemed moral or even obligatory on different grounds
One reason the U.N. was established after WWII was to keep despots like
Hitler and Stalin from coming to power and reeking havoc on the world
again; no longer a legal justification for war but still could be a moral one
So it was argued that removing Hussein was morally justified, as long as
innocent civilian life was not intentionally sacrificed to do it
Americans often can afford to take the idealistic perspective of judging peace
to have moral priority over freedom (the political freedom of Iraqi people)
since their freedom is not directly at stake, while (military) American life is
Support Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq





Given that legal and moral justifications are related, but distinct, the U.S.
invasion of Iraq in 2003 could, after the fact, be deemed illegal but could also
be deemed moral or even obligatory on different grounds
One reason the U.N. was established after WWII was to keep despots like
Hitler and Stalin from coming to power and reeking havoc on the world
again; no longer a legal justification for war but still could be a moral one
So it was argued that removing Hussein was morally justified, as long as
innocent civilian life was not intentionally sacrificed to do it
Americans often can afford to take the idealistic perspective of judging peace
to have moral priority over freedom (the political freedom of Iraqi people)
since their freedom is not directly at stake, while (military) American life is
It is important for Americans to remember the lessons of WWI and WWII,
especially from the perspective of those who required the help of others to
preserve their own freedom and did not get it (or did not get it in time)
I have described the moral scenario in Iraq in terms of an
incommensurable conflict of values – between maintaining world
peace and protecting political freedom – that could not be
simultaneously held at the time the war was declared.
What has been shown is that people of good will can come to
have conflicting, even incommensurable values in such a context,
and can also change their minds along with changes in
circumstance.
This shift in moral priority occurs when a different value
becomes the most important, and we have seen this is context
dependent, 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, we
develop our values through learning the facts, and also through
learning about the values of others, even those who are very
different from us. That is all we have, but it is no small
accomplishment.
The End