Is moral relativism in conflict with the West's "humanist project"?

I pick up my last post from the "If a little kidnapping & drug torture . . ." thread and place it here because we have gotten into what I believe are some really fundamental and important issues that deserve their own thread. The recent exchanges in that thread have been characterized by a civility, mutual respect and openness to the ideas of others that represents the best of this medium, and which I hope can be carried over here.

Pure said:

I don't find much logical content in your reply, Roxanne: I’ll take just two lines of your rhetorical flourishes:

"(Relativist people like pure, summer morning and el sol) find themselves unable to do more than shrug at mass murder, or tragic plagues."

I don't know where this comes from.

Click to expand...

Here is where it comes from:

"I don't mind if you want to kill 2 or 3... have at it. 6 million... well that's bad. 'Cause then you're more likely to kill me. Relativism... it's not that I think it's all relative... it's that I only give a shit about things relative to me."

"Let's go back to the Black plague, which at one time wiped out a large portion of Europe. But the survivors are apparently of hardier stock . . ."

"And I'm With RG on the Holocaust. Supremely rational. Never has the extinction of life been more rational."

I acknowledge that the last item is taken out of context, but it is nevertheless illustrative of the abuse of language that is another product of relativism.

I also acknowledge that I get very passionate about this issue, and it shows in my language sometimes.

I am passionate because I see a tradition of Western humanism that goes back to the Renaissance, with antecedents in Greece, Judaism and Christianity, thrown over by a mish-mash of ideas that, when you peel away the elaborate rationalizations, appear to be nothing more than a nihilistic brand of mysticism, or mystical nihilism. Please believe that I’m not trying to resort to ad-hominem labels, but just to honestly describe what I see.

We are living off the “capital” of that humanistic project, which is responsible for our current social advancement, material well-being, and for everything good in the fundamental precepts that are still the foundation of western governments - and are the model for the world. (Ideas like the purpose of government is the happiness of the people, not the pleasure of the king, or the propagation of the faith.)

I don't understand the hostility to this humanistic tradition. I suspect it is related to the West’s loss of confidence brought on by the 20th century's record of war and slaughter, and in the United States by the Civil Right's era's shocked realization that the ideals of this nation had been misappropriated to prop up institutionalized racism.

Because those who created Auschwitz and the Gulag were filled with a passionate certainty, we decided to distrust any certainty. We dismissed the notion that we can know anything, including our own nature, or that as human beings it is perfectly reasonable for us to praise that which is good for human life, and condemn that which is destructive to it.

I am not a hard-core Randian, a "Randroid." I accept that there is more to humanity than just reason. Despite my atheism I do appreciate that there is a spiritual side to man. Rob listed wonderful human traits that are not reason-based: empathy, compassion, wisdom, courage. He's right. The smartest libertarian I know, Charles Murray, is not a Randian because he perceives a spiritual component to humanity that is not captured by Rand. "Ethical monotheists" like Karen Armstrong, Dennis Praeger, and Thomas Cahill have tapped into this spirituality, and for me reinforce the correctness of Murray's perception.

Look, guys, I'm pouring my heart out here. I ask you look again at this post, and the excepts from my previous ones (below) with an open mind, not trying to pick them apart and find any logical flaws to challenge, but in a generous spirit of trying to appreciate the "meta-message" behind my words.

Roxanne Appleby said:

I'm not on the "cosmic sidelines;" I'm a human: Go, team.

. . . the moral relativists, who think because they are "nice people" that it is harmless for them to refuse to declare that anything is objectively good or evil, can so easily slip over a line and find themselves unable to do more than shrug at mass murder, or tragic plagues.

Click to expand...

Roxanne Appleby said:

I don't disagree (with Rob) that man does not live by rationality alone, and that it has its limitations, and that it requires an agreed upon premises. But it's the best tool we have for the issues under discussion here, and I don't believe it needs to be in conflict with those other human qualities you cite. Indeed, if they are in conflict with rationality then empathy, imagination, intuition, or memory can be very destructive. And I don't think it is nearly as impossible or even that difficult to find premises that are mutually agreeable. Namely, this one:

It is man's nature to want to live and enjoy life.

Upon this premise you can build a universal reason-based ethics that is very useful in living our daily lives. That is the purpose of ethics - to be useful. It's not supposed to be a parlor game reserved for ivory tower academics and of no use to real people in the real world.

Click to expand...

Roxanne Appleby said:

On what basis do you claim the Holocaust was not good?

Was it just not good in "my" good, but maybe good in "your" good, and "who am I to say which is correct?"

Or is it a majoritarian thing - that which "the majority of Earth's population" say is good, is therefore good.

Do you perceive the unsatisfactoriness of a relativist statement in this regard? Do you maybe have the tiniest suspicion that, as human beings, we can confidently assert that there might be some things that just really, really are not good - period, no qualification necessary - notwithstanding the fact that there will always be some fool or thug who claims otherwise?

Click to expand...

As a Pagan, I accept both sides of mankind. However, I do have more use for reason than some New Age Pagans.

as I pointed out, roxanne, most of the slaughter of the last few centuries, if not millenia, have been carried out by those saying that they have an 'objective' morality, and they know the 'true and real' good.

to the religious wars too numerous to name, add the efforts of marxists like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

the pope's most recent anouncement banning homosexuals fromt he priesthood enunciates the view that the practice is "objectively disordered".

so if your straw man 'slouching relativist' exists, he's far less dangerous than 99% of you 'objective' folks, whose most recent companion of the order is Osama bin Laden.

so it's quite puzzling that you rant about the 'harm' engendered by those professing moral UNcertainty.
---

Surely the best advice to give people generally is "Stop killing, put down your gun. Consider for a few moments that what you view as 'objectively' right may well be mistaken."

The contrasting advice "Hey let's develop another variety of morals that are objective." is pretty bad. Adding the term 'humanism' does not do much good, since many marxists are humanists. marxist praxis is said to be humanism informed by objective values, namely the value of the ideal sociialist society where no man exploits or oppresses another.

So there is no reason to think that invoking 'humanism' as your preferred variety of objective morality is going to be any different.

----
PS I realize that I'm playing your game, here, talking about a view in terms of its alleged harms. This is, as you know, a logical fallacy. The thesis that morals are relative has to be looked at carefully, as does the thesis that there is an objective morality. the issue of 'proving' any morality has to be examined.

As an atheist you are surely aware that a most common 'argument' against atheism is that it's socially harmful. To which the reply might well be, "So what. It's well fouinded."

So if I play the game of 'your position is harmful,' as opposed to unsupported and unsupportable, speculative and unproven, it's with full knowledge of the inherent fallacy.

Hi Rox,

I'll try to stay civil and polite ... it's about the only thing keeping us "moral relativists" from inflicting pain and terror with massive weapons of distruction (Dr. Who reference) upon one another.

I believe the moral relativism you refer to is a direct result of humanism developed to its inherently logical conclusion. One of the sine qua non humanist disciplines, anthropology, laid the door wide open to a perspective of humanity which transcended the ethnocentric view typical of any culture. Specifically, anthropology as a scientific result of Western humanism ended up giving us - entirely in keeping with humanist precepts - a view of humanity that was culture neutral.

This essentially completed the abolition of the moral absolute. In the first epistemological divide the Enlightenment translated the rules governing humanity from the sphere of god to the sphere of nature, while the second epistemological divide - generally credited to Durkheim - replaced nature with society.

So, in a sense, humanism led from seeing mankind as governed by "God" to mankind governed by "Nature" to mankind governed by "Society." The last epistemological divide pretty much abolished the concept of an Absolute Natural Truth. It is not, of course, accepted by all ... probably not even the majority ... scientists. Yet. But that's not the topic of this thread.

I see no conflict between Western humanism and cultural (*not* moral, though morals tend to be culture-bound) relativism. I believe that the ethics deriving from Western humanism are sound and perfectly acceptable, within the cosmology(ies) (call it the ideosphere, if it sounds better) of the West. It is their universalization to all humanity that should be questioned --> the universalization of the western ethos should not be considered an *automatic* process, rather it should be seen as one possibility, but a possibility that requires intercultural dialogue and compromise nonetheless.

To give an example. Roxanne, you mentioned the holocaust. Time, dialogue and some limited compromise has led to genocide being universally accepted as wrong, bad, evil, illegal, beyond the pale ... and whatnot. Not only has it been enshrined in international legal documents, it has become international common law. There is not a single serious government or individual or organization appearing or even possible on the international stage that would advocate genocide.

What you must remember is that, though culture may have replaced nature, that does not make your ethic any less sound *within your culture.* Outside your culture the imposition of your ethic has a name ... it is called imperialism.

I'm sorry Roxanne. But I am only going to post here once and once only.

First, I am going to quibble with your central thesis that there is a moral absolute. Perhaps there is one but we mere humans will never be able to comprehend it.

I also sincerely dislike your sotto voce implication that 'relativists' are incapable of being good. And that we will shrug off things such as The Holocaust as something that will simply happen and there's no reason to get upset about it. I do not shrug it off, it was an utter horror and I do everything I can to prevent its reoccurrence.

I don't know where you get the idea that we should accept 'certainties'. And why your 'certainty' is any less likely to end in horror than Stalin's or Hitler's.

I, myself, don't want 'certainty'. I want good. I live my life trying to be good. And whether I am good or not is something I wonder about every day.

And furthermore, I regard the quest for 'certainty' as a flight from responsibility, and thought. Once you know for certain, you never have to think and you never need to feel guilty. What you did was what you had to do, no choice involved at all.

Roxanne, you aren't trying to find the truth, you're trying to prove it.

That's it. No more from me in this thread.

Pure said:

... so if your straw man 'slouching relativist' exists, he's far less dangerous than 99% of you 'objective' folks, whose most recent companion of the order is Osama bin Laden.

so it's quite puzzling that you rant about the 'harm' engendered by those professing moral UNcertainty.

Click to expand...

Heer heer! I'm harmless as a deer!

I prefer Nature to much of "Society" myself. Then again, that's partly a religious issue with me.

Roxanne Appleby said:

I am passionate because I see a tradition of Western humanism that goes back to the Renaissance, with antecedents in Greece, Judaism and Christianity, thrown over by a mish-mash of ideas that, when you peel away the elaborate rationalizations, appear to be nothing more than a nihilistic brand of mysticism, or mystical nihilism. Please believe that I’m not trying to resort to ad-hominem labels, but just to honestly describe what I see.

We are living off the “capital” of that humanistic project, which is responsible for our current social advancement, material well-being, and for everything good in the fundamental precepts that are still the foundation of western governments - and are the model for the world. (Ideas like the purpose of government is the happiness of the people, not the pleasure of the king, or the propagation of the faith.)

I don't understand the hostility to this humanistic tradition. I suspect it is related to the West’s loss of confidence brought on by the 20th century's record of war and slaughter, and in the United States by the Civil Right's era's shocked realization that the ideals of this nation had been misappropriated to prop up institutionalized racism.

Click to expand...

Well, what can I say? Nothing much really. You see hostility to the western philosophical tradition in relativism? I see it in absolutism.

What the wise men (and, as much as they were allowed to, women) back in the antiques and later in the reannisance did that was remarkable was to pay respect to the dichotomies of opposing perspectives and value bases, instead of ploughing on, blinded by the dogmas of tradition and divine authority. They applied the idea that perhaps they did not have it right, and that, along with a belevolent economic environment at the time, set off the singularities of advancements in those eras. THIS is the ignition spark, if anything, to the development of western civilisation and societal structures as it looks today.

It is not about accepting that another set of core values than mine is right. It is about respecting the fact that they do exist. I have my morals and they are as set and strong as anyone elses. But I also know that werther they are divinely, rationally or whateverly "correct" is just a paper tiger. The other guy will have just as strong beliefs in their core values. If you want to call that Nihilism, then that is your choice. It doesn't make it so.

SEVERUSMAX said:

I prefer Nature to much of "Society" myself. Then again, that's partly a religious issue with me.

Click to expand...

Nature is a social concept. Seriously, try to envisage "nature" without recourse to everything you have received from your society. It's impossible. Not only are the words you think "nature" with a social phenomenon, the very colours you see nature in are "social" in that different societies "know" different colours.

I disagree. I speak of scientific, natural phenomena that the more absurd mores of a repressed society cannot change, despite its efforts at doing so.

SEVERUSMAX said:

I disagree. I speak of scientific, natural phenomena that the more absurd mores of a repressed society cannot change, despite its efforts at doing so.

Click to expand...

Huh? Sorry, I need a bit of a longer response.

How's this? Humans, following their inventive nature, created society. Then they fucked it up by letting society determine whom they should or should not fuck.

humans are born into society, they don't start as individuals and 'create' it (make a compact, a social contract). partly this is the case because, as with most mammals, the young are helpless for a significant period.

as for control of fucking, if you look at mammal (wolf) and primate (baboon) societies, you'll see control of fucking. A common form, is for there to be a dominant male who forbids the other males to access 'his' females.

Oh, come on. At some point, a bunch of cavemen got together and hatched the first human community.

Pure said:

as I pointed out, roxanne, most of the slaughter of the last few centuries, if not millenia, have been carried out by those saying that they have an 'objective' morality, and they know the 'true and real' good.

Click to expand...

Not unlike the Bush agenda/ PR stint, dare I say. We once argued about Nazi Germany on the AH, many said it would never happen again, and yet? It could. We never learn, we are human.

add the efforts of marxists like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

Click to expand...

I am not a marxist, but I am familiar with the ideology and I am sure Karl would be rolling in his grave for the bastardized associations, although I doubt he did not forsee them.

the pope's most recent anouncement banning homosexuals from the priesthood

Click to expand...

Well, that should put Catholicism in the dirt then - Silly Pope.

Surely the best advice to give people generally is "Stop killing, put down your gun. Consider for a few moments that what you view as 'objectively' right may well be mistaken."[

Click to expand...

Well its good - but funny that the US requires countries like Iraq to "not create nuclear arms" in the same hypocritical breath they ignored North Koreas threat and own so many, themselves. The amendment about the right to bear arms? Well, now - there's a ....

The contrasting advice "Hey let's develop another variety of morals that are objective." is pretty bad. Adding the term 'humanism' does not do much good, since many marxists are humanists. marxist praxis is said to be humanism informed by objective values, namely the value of the ideal sociialist society where no man exploits or oppresses another.

Click to expand...

All theories are good on paper, the problem in the equation is man.

Humans are still hierarchal creatures, not utopian geared.

SEVERUSMAX said:

Oh, come on. At some point, a bunch of cavemen got together and hatched the first human community.

Click to expand...

Eh...no. Somewhere along the blurry line that separates us from other primates, an already functional community (Or flock. Or is it pack? Herd? I never get that right.) of apes became the first human community.

That's right. Evolution. Cuz I'm a godless bastard who wants to kill Christmas and stuff.

Liar said:

Eh...no. Somewhere along the blurry line that separates us from other primates, an already functional community (Or flock. Or is it pack? Herd? I never get that right.) of apes became the first human community.

That's right. Evolution. Cuz I'm a godless bastard who wants to kill Christmas and stuff.

Click to expand...

Neandrathals were replaced by hominids in theory. Where the hominids came from? Well, there's a question.

PS: I am not sure that Min is far off in this theory, so I think you mean a gaggle of humans?

Tsk. Being a hypocrite. Oh well, I'm only human.

I believe a grouping of apes or other primates are called a 'troop'.

CharleyH said:

so I think you mean a gaggle of humans?

Click to expand...

I prefer a giggle.

Liar said:

I prefer a giggle.

Click to expand...

I knew you would, which is why I said it.

Liar said:

Eh...no. Somewhere along the blurry line that separates us from other primates, an already functional community (Or flock. Or is it pack? Herd? I never get that right.) of apes became the first human community.

That's right. Evolution. Cuz I'm a godless bastard who wants to kill Christmas and stuff.

Click to expand...

I believe in evolution too, which means that I believe in the Ice Age. The Ice Age virtually guaranteed that human society had to be reborn and recreated by HUMANS!

SEVERUSMAX said:

I believe in evolution too, which means that I believe in the Ice Age. The Ice Age virtually guaranteed that human society had to be reborn and recreated by HUMANS!

Click to expand...

How come? I'm not up to par with my prehistoric history, but weren't there human or at least hominid tribes before the ice age, as well as after it? Of course the new environment was something that primitive communities would have to adapt to. But that most likely happened by continouus physical and society evolution (as it did with all spieces at that time of climate change), not by a committee meeting.

Liar said:

How come? I'm not up to par with my prehistoric history, but weren't there human or at least hominid tribes before the ice age, as well as after it? Of course the new environment was something that primitive communities would have to adapt to. But that most likely happened by continouus physical and society evolution (as it did with all spieces at that time of climate change), not by a committee meeting.

Click to expand...

Ah, but wouldn't there be ad hoc, isolated groups forming? Not committees, but people thrown together by necessity to survive? Hunter-gatherers, for instance?

SEVERUSMAX said:

Ah, but wouldn't there be ad hoc, isolated groups forming? Not committees, but people thrown together by necessity to survive? Hunter-gatherers, for instance?

Click to expand...

...yes? And?

Liar said:

...yes? And?

Click to expand...

That would amount to human reinvention of society and merely exercising man's gift for organization. I doubt that these cavemen decided that such and such sexual behavior was wrong. They simply worked together to survive. Thus the pragmatic reason for the formation of society. Language and culture formed about the same time. The point is that these preceded social mores. Social mores were invented by humans. Ethics have to be about more than this "social" brand of morality.