|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
Business & Finance Resource Center The Radical Academy Blogs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
INDEX:
November 13, 2003 - Posted in The Academy Forum Dear Dr. Dolhenty, I appreciate your work on this site -- enjoying it tremendously. I do have a question, based largely on your essay about the myth of moral relativism. I'm thinking not of the theory so much as its application to public policy. I find that many people who identify as moral absolutists feel not only that there are moral absolutes, but that they personally apprehend them perfectly. There's no recognition of the limitations of human knowledge and intellect, or how these may be affecting their conclusions. I find those who identify as moral relativists saying not that moral absolutes don't exist, but that we can't be perfectly confident in our moral conclusions or anyone else's. They feel that this uncertainty should influence us away from authoritarian and moralistic gov't. Translated into policy, this appears as "laws should reflect my own views of morality, period" or "laws should allow personal freedom for individuals to resolve their own moral dilemmas for themselves." Have you also noticed this difference between what moral absolutism or relativism mean in theory, and how they're used in the culture wars and in discussions of public policy? As something of a moral absolutist who recognizes the implications of uncertainty, do you find yourself wanting laws to reflect your own morals, or to give people more latitude to do their own thing? Thanks, Matt S.
Dear Matt, Thank you for your comments about our website. Now to the question. Let's be clear about a few things first. In my essay about moral relativism I am dealing with moral philosophy, not theological (or religious) ethics, which does present itself as an absolute morality. Also, my position is not that of one who thinks philosophy gives us an "absolute" ethics in any form. What I am basically saying in my essay is that those who claim to be ethical or moral relativists are either fooling themselves or are just plain hypocrites (unless, of course, they are genuine sociopaths or psychopaths!). If ALL moral principles or truths are really relative, then, I submit, one cannot make ANY moral judgment regarding ANY human action whatsoever. That is the problem the so-called moral relativist faces. He or she must remain SILENT because to express any moral or ethical evaluation requires it be submitted to some standard, criterion, or principle. For example (admittedly extreme), if some intruder broke into your parent's home and murdered them, a true moral relativist could not say that that action was immoral or unethical in any absolute sense (although one could argue it was illegal, which is a horse of another color). We are talking morality here, not legality -- ethics and not the law. Regarding moral absolutism, let's be clear. There are some so-called moral absolutists who think there is a list of immoral actions or "sins." Virtually all of these people are talking about religious ethics. I am excluding them from this discussion since that is not philosophy. Now, I am a moral absolutist only in this sense: There is at least ONE moral or ethical criterion or principle that is absolutely true for all human beings at all times everywhere that allows us to pass a moral or ethical judgment on a human action. This criterion or principle or standard must be objectively true. We may apply it differently in different circumstances and we may interpret it relative to a particular situation. But the truth of the basic criterion remains. And there is always a fundamental uncertainty that remains in the application of a moral criterion or standard to a practical problem. After all, we are only human and subject to error. The application of a moral criterion to public policy issues is always interesting and accounts for most of the debate in the political arena today. In my opinion, the same ONE moral or ethical criterion that is absolutely true for all human beings, etc., applies in the public arena as well. No, I do not want someone's particular moral code to be encased in law. Yes, I am willing to allow people to be able to do "their own thing" as long as it does not harm other persons or society or the culture in general. If you are asking for my personal opinion regarding certain specific public policies, let me state just a few: 1) the "War on Drugs" should be terminated and the use of so-called illegal drugs should be designated a medical problem, not a legal one; 2) prostitution should be de-criminalized, although, maybe, subject to licensing for health concerns, and the police ought to be addressing themselves to real crime; 3) so-called obscenity laws should be abolished and anyone should be free to read and/or view whatever he or she cares to read or view; and 4) it is not the government's nor society's business what you do in the privacy of your bedroom as long as consenting parties are involved. This does not mean I personally approve of each of the above, it simply means that, as a matter of public policy, I do believe that there is no genuine government or societal interest in the above behaviors. Please understand, Matt, there is not much certainty in ethical matters from a philosophical perspective. It is, after all, practical philosophy, as distinguished from speculative philosophy. It deals with "prescriptive" or "normative" truth, not with "descriptive" truth. For me, though, that is the real challenge of ethical theory. It is what makes it especially exciting to study. And, of course, any discussion of ethics or moral philosophy is eventually going to lead into a discussion of political philosophy, which is one of my favorite sub-disciplines of philosophy. And, of course, this eventually leads into a discussion of jurisprudence, or philosophy of law, where things can get really wild. There are legal naturalists and legal positivists and a bunch who are in between. I hope I have shed some light on your question. You might also want to check out the following essays in The Radical Academy regarding moral philosophy and the type of certainty possible within it. Also, you may find at least one principle of moral philosophy that is absolutely true, that is, it is "self-evident," and that's the best kind of absolute truth.
Best regards, Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D. Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
|
||||
|
Ask the Academy Main Index |
||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.