NYTimes shocked to discover that moral relativism has actual consequences

[Pointedstick]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/opinion ... ral-facts/

What would you say if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it’s wrong to kill people for fun or cheat on tests? Would you be surprised?

I was. As a philosopher, I already knew that many college-aged students don’t believe in moral facts. While there are no national surveys quantifying this phenomenon, philosophy professors with whom I have spoken suggest that the overwhelming majority of college freshman in their classrooms view moral claims as mere opinions that are not true or are true only relative to a culture.

What I didn’t know was where this attitude came from. Given the presence of moral relativism in some academic circles, some people might naturally assume that philosophers themselves are to blame. But they aren’t. There are historical examples of philosophers who endorse a kind of moral relativism, dating back at least to Protagoras who declared that “man is the measure of all things,”? and several who deny that there are any moral facts whatsoever. But such creatures are rare. Besides, if students are already showing up to college with this view of morality, it’s very unlikely that it’s the result of what professional philosophers are teaching. So where is the view coming from?

A few weeks ago, I learned that students are exposed to this sort of thinking well before crossing the threshold of higher education.

[...]

In summary, our public schools teach students that all claims are either facts or opinions and that all value and moral claims fall into the latter camp. The punchline: there are no moral facts. And if there are no moral facts, then there are no moral truths.

The inconsistency in this curriculum is obvious. For example, at the outset of the school year, my son brought home a list of student rights and responsibilities. Had he already read the lesson on fact vs. opinion, he might have noted that the supposed rights of other students were based on no more than opinions. According to the school’s curriculum, it certainly wasn’t true that his classmates deserved to be treated a particular way — that would make it a fact. Similarly, it wasn’t really true that he had any responsibilities — that would be to make a value claim a truth. It should not be a surprise that there is rampant cheating on college campuses: If we’ve taught our students for 12 years that there is no fact of the matter as to whether cheating is wrong, we can’t very well blame them for doing so later on.

Indeed, in the world beyond grade school, where adults must exercise their moral knowledge and reasoning to conduct themselves in the society, the stakes are greater. There, consistency demands that we acknowledge the existence of moral facts. If it’s not true that it’s wrong to murder a cartoonist with whom one disagrees, then how can we be outraged? If there are no truths about what is good or valuable or right, how can we prosecute people for crimes against humanity? If it’s not true that all humans are created equal, then why vote for any political system that doesn’t benefit you over others?

[Libertarian666]

How convenient for those who, as part of their normal routine, constantly violate the Golden Rule.
I'm sure that's a coincidence, though!

[dragoncar]

What a load of baloney.  Of course there are no moral facts, unless you accept a specific moral framework.  It is a fact that you will get expelled if you cheat and its a fact that it's illegal to kill people as well as a fact that the vast majority of people find it morally reprehensible.  It's also a fact that it meets.  It may be a fact that it's immoral to kill people under utilitarianism or another moral framework, but certainly there are some in which it's not immoral to kill people.  Plus, many accept that it's ok to kill people in some circumstances.

Why is it wrong to teach our children to think critically?  Would you rather just sit them down in front of Fox News for their "education?"

[Pointedstick]

What a load of baloney.  Of course there are no moral facts, unless you accept a specific moral framework.  It is a fact that you will get expelled if you cheat and its a fact that it's illegal to kill people as well as a fact that the vast majority of people find it morally reprehensible.  It's also a fact that it meets.  It may be a fact that it's immoral to kill people under utilitarianism or another moral framework, but certainly there are some in which it's not immoral to kill people.  Plus, many accept that it's ok to kill people in some circumstances.

Because it's actually wrong to kill? Or because it's appropriate to follow the cultural zeitgeist so you don't receive sanction for actions which are out of step with public opinion and the laws of the power structure?

I actually tend to agree more with the moral relativism side on this, but it's interesting to puzzle through the logical consequences of the position. If (certain kinds of) killing is wrong only because my culture tells me it is, then doesn't mean that outside of the bounds or reach of my culture, culturally-un-sanctioned killing is a totally morally neutral act?

[Libertarian666]

What a load of baloney.  Of course there are no moral facts, unless you accept a specific moral framework.  It is a fact that you will get expelled if you cheat and its a fact that it's illegal to kill people as well as a fact that the vast majority of people find it morally reprehensible.  It's also a fact that it meets.  It may be a fact that it's immoral to kill people under utilitarianism or another moral framework, but certainly there are some in which it's not immoral to kill people.  Plus, many accept that it's ok to kill people in some circumstances.

Because it's actually wrong to kill? Or because it's appropriate to follow the cultural zeitgeist so you don't receive sanction for actions which are out of step with public opinion and the laws of the power structure?

I actually tend to agree more with the moral relativism side on this, but it's interesting to puzzle through the logical consequences of the position. If (certain kinds of) killing is wrong only because my culture tells me it is, then doesn't mean that outside of the bounds or reach of my culture, culturally-un-sanctioned killing is a totally morally neutral act?

Follow moral relativism to its logical consequences and you end up with "might makes right".

[Pointedstick]

Follow moral relativism to its logical consequences and you end up with "might makes right".

Yes, exactly. Well said.

[moda0306]

The article rightly points out the inconsistency of saying that there are no moral rules at the same time as asking students to obey them.  Though, the student "rights" hand-book isn't administered by the philosophy professor, and perhaps these aren't being presented as objective truths so much as subjective preferences of the school board & administrators (which has no necessary moral weight, but certainly functional weight if you plan on not getting kicked out of school).  Explaining to students administrative cause & affect is not necessarily stating disobedience is morally reprehensible.

The author then goes on to explain that we should "do the hard thing" and help TEACH moral facts, because they exist, but in true "moral truthist" fashion, offers no evidence to the effect.

Further, it doesn't take much deep digging to come up with scenarios that offer us a moral dilemma, as they put us in a position of having to do one person harm to help several others.... challenging our belief about what we thought was a "moral truth."

And simply stating that there are NO moral truths is NOT moral relativism.  Stating that morality is true or false based on some relative standpoint is what moral relativism is.  A nihilist is NOT a moral relativist.


Personally, I think we need far, far more critical thinking exposure, even around morality, in our education system.  If that leads to a bunch of students that want to question moral assertions, that is NOT the equivalent of having a bunch of moral relativists running around (even if it looks that way to our moral absolutist/truthist friends (whether deity-based or self-ownership-based)).

[moda0306]

I feel another round of "proving morality" occurring here.

At least it's not monetary realism...

Oh wait... that's in Ad's new thread.

[moda0306]

I personally find moral relativism to be a pretty weak position.  It's essentially saying "do what those around you deem to be right, and you're right."  One can easily see how flimsy that argument is.  There's a huge diversity of opinions.  Even insulated societies are exposed to different ideas on that stuff.

However, there seems to be an innate will by those who have very, very strong beliefs around morality (usually either on the religious side or the self-ownership side) that wants to call anyone who doesn't agree with them, or wants to have more nuanced conversations about morality, or hasn't come to a hard/fast conclusion about morality, a "moral relativist."

Not knowing where your moral instincts come from (while possibly arguing that both theists and anarcho-capitalists are using shaky logic to prove to me the "truth"), and having a strong opinion that morality is relative to the culture/time you are in, are two very different things.  I find it a little annoying when they get thrown in the same pit together.

[Pointedstick]

I find myself torn. I have difficulty accepting any supposed sources of absolute morality that I am presented with, but moral relativism seems to have monstrous implications if you take them to their obvious and logical conclusion.

[moda0306]

PS,

I agree... but I think that's a false-equivalence.  Saying that you can't pin-point moral truths, and that moral truths are relative to one's time and culture are not the same position.

I have not seen one moral framework that doesn't become extremely weak if you talk about it enough. Utilitarianism, Bible-based, self-ownership-based, some sort of humanist pacifism... etc...

They either leave you doing horrible things given the "right situation," or they leave you so incredibly weak that in the real world you would have been slaughtered or taken advantage of in droves.  This doesn't make them "relatively" true.  It simply leaves me with no perfect answer on morality.

The closest thing I can think is HB's framework:

Do what's in your own best interests by:

- Acting like the type of person you'd want to hang out with
- Being very honest

There's more, but that's the closest thing I can see to being a good framework in a "micro sense."  Obviously, it doesn't work that well as you get to societal policy prescriptions and such, where the fallacy of composition can bite you in the @ss.

[Pointedstick]

PS,

I agree... but I think that's a false-equivalence.  Saying that you can't pin-point moral truths, and that moral truths are relative to one's time and culture are not the same position.

I have not seen one moral framework that doesn't become extremely weak if you talk about it enough. Utilitarianism, Bible-based, self-ownership-based, some sort of humanist pacifism... etc...

They either leave you doing horrible things given the "right situation," or they leave you so incredibly weak that in the real world you would have been slaughtered or taken advantage of in droves.  This doesn't make them "relatively" true.  It simply leaves me with no perfect answer on morality.

The closest thing I can think is HB's framework:

Do what's in your own best interests by:

- Acting like the type of person you'd want to hang out with
- Being very honest

There's more, but that's the closest thing I can see to being a good framework in a "micro sense."  Obviously, it doesn't work that well as you get to societal policy prescriptions and such, where the fallacy of composition can bite you in the @ss.

As a matter of practicality, I completely agree, but this isn't an internally consistent moral framework. What if I am an asshole or a sociopath? What if honesty will directly work against my interests in some situation or other?

Maybe you;re right that there's no such thing as a moral framework that actually works if you hold it in the wrong way.

[Mountaineer]

PS,

I agree... but I think that's a false-equivalence.  Saying that you can't pin-point moral truths, and that moral truths are relative to one's time and culture are not the same position.

I have not seen one moral framework that doesn't become extremely weak if you talk about it enough. Utilitarianism, Bible-based, self-ownership-based, some sort of humanist pacifism... etc...

They either leave you doing horrible things given the "right situation," or they leave you so incredibly weak that in the real world you would have been slaughtered or taken advantage of in droves.  This doesn't make them "relatively" true.  It simply leaves me with no perfect answer on morality.

The closest thing I can think is HB's framework:

Do what's in your own best interests by:

- Acting like the type of person you'd want to hang out with
- Being very honest

There's more, but that's the closest thing I can see to being a good framework in a "micro sense."  Obviously, it doesn't work that well as you get to societal policy prescriptions and such, where the fallacy of composition can bite you in the @ss.

And how does one "be very honest" without an external source or definition of what honesty is?  Thus, it seems there can't be moral relativitism and at the same time have a value or principle of "be honest".  So, we are left with "there are absolute truths", at least for Harry Brown framework followers.  Assumption: this is only important to answer if two or more people are in the tribe/culture/country etc. (excluding the God factor of damnation or salvation).  What am I missing?

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

HB's moral philosophy is more of a life hack towards getting what you want than adherence to external moral "truths" or assertions.  In fact, many wouldn't even refer to it as a moral philosophy.

But honesty can be defined.  Stating the truth as you know it, and sticking to your word, are the definitions (loose enough, I suppose) of "honesty."  But he doesn't say "do this or else you're evil," he says "do this and you'll attract the kind of people you want around you."


So we probably shouldn't even include HB's philosophy in conversations about morality, because he specifically chooses to define it quite a bit differently than we use it in these debates.

[Mark Leavy]

Jake, one of the infrequent but very insightful commenters here did a three part series podcast on finding your own moral compass.  I enjoyed it very much.  I thought it was well thought out and aligned and complemented Harry Browne's basic philosophies very well.

http://www.thevoluntarylife.com/2014/04 ... mpass.html
http://www.thevoluntarylife.com/2014/04 ... art-2.html
http://www.thevoluntarylife.com/2014/05 ... art-3.html

[moda0306]

PS,

I agree... but I think that's a false-equivalence.  Saying that you can't pin-point moral truths, and that moral truths are relative to one's time and culture are not the same position.

I have not seen one moral framework that doesn't become extremely weak if you talk about it enough. Utilitarianism, Bible-based, self-ownership-based, some sort of humanist pacifism... etc...

They either leave you doing horrible things given the "right situation," or they leave you so incredibly weak that in the real world you would have been slaughtered or taken advantage of in droves.  This doesn't make them "relatively" true.  It simply leaves me with no perfect answer on morality.

The closest thing I can think is HB's framework:

Do what's in your own best interests by:

- Acting like the type of person you'd want to hang out with
- Being very honest

There's more, but that's the closest thing I can see to being a good framework in a "micro sense."  Obviously, it doesn't work that well as you get to societal policy prescriptions and such, where the fallacy of composition can bite you in the @ss.

As a matter of practicality, I completely agree, but this isn't an internally consistent moral framework. What if I am an asshole or a sociopath? What if honesty will directly work against my interests in some situation or other?

Maybe you;re right that there's no such thing as a moral framework that actually works if you hold it in the wrong way.

Well I agree HB's philosophy is more of a personal guidebook than a universalizable moral one. 

To the latter part, I'm just talking about what I've experienced.  There might be a "perfect" moral philosophy out there, that works for all the curve-balls one could throw at it.

I'm just saying I haven't seen one.

[craigr]

Every society is going to have a sizeable portion of the population that will take advantage of other people for their own good. This is why you need a moral framework in the overarching sense to keep the society in general working correctly.

Moral relativism doesn't work because it fundamentally is a Marxist principle. It assumes everyone and everything is equal when it is very obvious that things are not all equal in nature and the world.

The moral relativism becomes total and complete poison in a multi-cultural and individualism-focused society because the various groups must work down to a lowest common denominator of morality. It is hard to achieve excellence when everyone around you is constantly working to lower standards to not make anyone else unhappy.

So it is no surprise to me that America is in the grips of an upcoming generation that thinks moral relativism is the only way to look at the world, because for them it will be. When you shatter a culture with constant attacks against the things that made it great, the end result will be a disaster.

These Libertarian moral frameworks will never work because it assumes that everyone is logical and reasoned in how they view the world. Where in reality the overwhelming majority of the world population is not this way at all. In this sense, libertarianism and communism share the same core fault: A naive belief in human nature that everyone will come together and work as a group for the betterment of all. This of course never happens which is why Libertarianism and Communism are total duds. Both will end up in the same place of tyranny but arrive by different roads.

A moral people with a common good culture do not need a lot of laws to govern them. They can govern themselves with their mores. When those mores are weakened or eliminated you need to have an outside force maintain control and that's exactly what is happening in the U.S. and other Western countries. The radical egalitarianism and individualism that people say they want so much is exactly what will cause them to lose everything.

[dragoncar]

I also find the idea that "cheating is rampant in college" is a consequence of one professor teaching his kids to think critically about morality vs law for the past 13 years.  Cheating wasn't rampant 50 years ago?  Please.

[Libertarian666]

I find myself torn. I have difficulty accepting any supposed sources of absolute morality that I am presented with, but moral relativism seems to have monstrous implications if you take them to their obvious and logical conclusion.

The Golden Rule is a source of moral law that I will claim is valid for everyone, because each person wants others to follow it toward him even if he doesn't follow it himself.

Does that mean it is absolutely true? Maybe not, but it's good enough, in the sense that if everyone followed it, the world would be a far better place.

So my life's "stretch goal" is to figure out a way to convince people that it is in their own interest to follow it themselves...

[Pointedstick]

These Libertarian moral frameworks will never work because it assumes that everyone is logical and reasoned in how they view the world. Where in reality the overwhelming majority of the world population is not this way at all.

The Golden Rule is a source of moral law that I will claim is valid for everyone, because each person wants others to follow it toward him even if he doesn't follow it himself.

Does that mean it is absolutely true? Maybe not, but it's good enough, in the sense that if everyone followed it, the world would be a far better place.

So my life's "stretch goal" is to figure out a way to convince people that it is in their own interest to follow it themselves...

It seems to me that the golden rule is basically moral relativism at the individual level rather than the societal one: what's moral is what I want; so what I want is how I should treat others.


This works well for generally good people, but not so well when you apply it to how generally bad people will see the world as filtered through their own impression of themselves:

I deserve to be treated badly, so I'll treat others badly, too.

I feel guilty for the transgressions of my ancestors, so I want everyone else to feel guilty for the transgressions of their ancestors too.

My stuff isn't really worth preserving or protecting, so It's okay to take other people's stuff.

[moda0306]

Every society is going to have a sizeable portion of the population that will take advantage of other people for their own good. This is why you need a moral framework in the overarching sense to keep the society in general working correctly.

Moral relativism doesn't work because it fundamentally is a Marxist principle. It assumes everyone and everything is equal when it is very obvious that things are not all equal in nature and the world.

The moral relativism becomes total and complete poison in a multi-cultural and individualism-focused society because the various groups must work down to a lowest common denominator of morality. It is hard to achieve excellence when everyone around you is constantly working to lower standards to not make anyone else unhappy.

So it is no surprise to me that America is in the grips of an upcoming generation that thinks moral relativism is the only way to look at the world, because for them it will be. When you shatter a culture with constant attacks against the things that made it great, the end result will be a disaster.

These Libertarian moral frameworks will never work because it assumes that everyone is logical and reasoned in how they view the world. Where in reality the overwhelming majority of the world population is not this way at all. In this sense, libertarianism and communism share the same core fault: A naive belief in human nature that everyone will come together and work as a group for the betterment of all. This of course never happens which is why Libertarianism and Communism are total duds. Both will end up in the same place of tyranny but arrive by different roads.

A moral people with a common good culture do not need a lot of laws to govern them. They can govern themselves with their mores. When those mores are weakened or eliminated you need to have an outside force maintain control and that's exactly what is happening in the U.S. and other Western countries. The radical egalitarianism and individualism that people say they want so much is exactly what will cause them to lose everything.

Marxism is absolutely not relativist in nature, nor vice versa.  Stating that we are all equal on certain levels (which both Marxism and Capitalism do... they just disagree on the levels of equality), runs in direct contradiction to moral relativism.

Marxism has a very strictly defined moral framework around its beliefs about social structures, authority and property.  Those who disagree with it are just as SoL as those who disagree with the moral legitimacy of factory farming in an capitalist society.


I would struggle to call our young generation "moral relativists."  Sure, that's what uber-capitalists and strict Bible interpreters would love to call them, but they are simply using different moral philosophies at different times, and then rationalizing it after the fact, which is just what has been done for millenia by people.  They're just doing it more often (with their liberal biases) in-defense of a culture that isn't theirs, rather than in nationalist defense of their community/church/state/religion. 

Most people we would be inclined to call relativists are just hypocrites.  They believe in "respecting the cultural norms" of such and such a culture, but then don't respect the cultural norms of right-wing American culture, which is to judge those people harshly for their treatment of women, children, sex, health, what-have-you.

But this is no different than the battle over nebulous "rights" vs other people's "rights," or vs poorly-constructed utilitarian philosophies, or just simply picking out whichever one works for someone's tribalist bias at any given time.  This "moral chameleonism" is as old as time.  If you need to come up with a given moral answer, find a Bible passage, use some utilitarian realism, or make up some fancy term like "Manifest Destiny."  Want another answer?  Let's talk about "natural rights," or "the rule of law," or "general welfare of the public." Some, of course, are worse than others at hiding it or admitting to it.  But the last thing we need is to try to insult critical thinking around moral arguments.  It weeds out bad logic, or at least the worst logic, when trying to deal with issues of morality in some sort of consistent way... and if we can't be consistent without running into some hairy mora dilemmas, at least it helps us organize our thoughts around competing moral priorities to (hopefully) consistently juxtapose against each other.

[Ad Orientem]

I feel another round of "proving morality" occurring here.

At least it's not monetary realism...

Oh wait... that's in Ad's new thread.

Hush!

[moda0306]

These Libertarian moral frameworks will never work because it assumes that everyone is logical and reasoned in how they view the world. Where in reality the overwhelming majority of the world population is not this way at all.

The Golden Rule is a source of moral law that I will claim is valid for everyone, because each person wants others to follow it toward him even if he doesn't follow it himself.

Does that mean it is absolutely true? Maybe not, but it's good enough, in the sense that if everyone followed it, the world would be a far better place.

So my life's "stretch goal" is to figure out a way to convince people that it is in their own interest to follow it themselves...

It seems to me that the golden rule is basically moral relativism at the individual level rather than the societal one: what's moral is what I want; so what I want is how I should treat others.


This works well for generally good people, but not so well when you apply it to how generally bad people will see the world as filtered through their own impression of themselves:

I deserve to be treated badly, so I'll treat others badly, too.

I feel guilty for the transgressions of my ancestors, so I want everyone else to feel guilty for the transgressions of their ancestors too.

My stuff isn't really worth preserving or protecting, so It's okay to take other people's stuff.

Exaaactly.  The Golden Rule has some glaring faults.  Just because I have certain moral priorities about what I would want/do in a situation, doesn't mean that it's always going to induce behavior that others might not just find morally reprehensible.

For instance:

"If I were living a life of sin and was destined for hell, I'd want somebody to "save" me by "educating" my tribe about Jesus."

"If I were rich, I'd be ok with helping the poor via taxes."


I'm all for "walking a mile in the other guy's shoes" type of conversations, as it's healthy to get yourself out of your own tribal groupthink, but listing that as the foundation of a perfect moral framework is going to yield you some odd behaviors out there.

Not to mention, this says nothing about the fallacy of composition.  If 1 million people decide that government is wrong because of the golden rule, and fail to assemble even a military, they'll lose to whatever "Manifest Destiny" argument eventually finds them on some state's chopping block or trail of tears.  So even if it DID work on the individual level, it could very likely fail from a societal standpoint.

[Libertarian666]

These Libertarian moral frameworks will never work because it assumes that everyone is logical and reasoned in how they view the world. Where in reality the overwhelming majority of the world population is not this way at all.

The Golden Rule is a source of moral law that I will claim is valid for everyone, because each person wants others to follow it toward him even if he doesn't follow it himself.

Does that mean it is absolutely true? Maybe not, but it's good enough, in the sense that if everyone followed it, the world would be a far better place.

So my life's "stretch goal" is to figure out a way to convince people that it is in their own interest to follow it themselves...

It seems to me that the golden rule is basically moral relativism at the individual level rather than the societal one: what's moral is what I want; so what I want is how I should treat others.


This works well for generally good people, but not so well when you apply it to how generally bad people will see the world as filtered through their own impression of themselves:

I deserve to be treated badly, so I'll treat others badly, too.

I feel guilty for the transgressions of my ancestors, so I want everyone else to feel guilty for the transgressions of their ancestors too.

My stuff isn't really worth preserving or protecting, so It's okay to take other people's stuff.

Let's take those one at a time:
1. Even people who treat others badly want to be treated well themselves. Anyone who deals with real criminals can tell you that, but for one example, read "Life at the Bottom" by Dalrymple (http://www.amazon.com/Life-Bottom-World ... 1566635055).
2. Who cares if someone wants me to feel guilty?
3. See the same book I cite in 1. Even burglars are angry if someone steals their stuff.

In any event, the real problem with criminals is not that they apply the Golden Rule in these incorrect ways, but that they don't apply it at all.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

HB's moral philosophy is more of a life hack towards getting what you want than adherence to external moral "truths" or assertions.  In fact, many wouldn't even refer to it as a moral philosophy.

But honesty can be defined.  Stating the truth as you know it, and sticking to your word, are the definitions (loose enough, I suppose) of "honesty."  But he doesn't say "do this or else you're evil," he says "do this and you'll attract the kind of people you want around you."


So we probably shouldn't even include HB's philosophy in conversations about morality, because he specifically chooses to define it quite a bit differently than we use it in these debates.

If I understand what you are saying correctly, it seems HB's "be honest" is more like "keep your promises" or some kind of internal honor code.  Right?

... Mountaineer