Often when I write a post, someone will make a comment that is hard to respond to without writing a whole post. Back in January, Skeptic Turtle made such an interestingly provocative comment and I filed it away with hundreds of others for extended commentary sometime when I had more free time. Recent politics caused the related issues to bubble to the surface and I’m happy to take a few minutes to explain why.
“Kent, you seem to make a distinction many people find difficult. There is a difference between promoting policies that give people freedom and choice and being a moral relativist that sees no distinction between good choices and bad choices. Former Catholics for Free Choice president Frances Kissling often discusses the need for pro-choicers to accept that sometimes abortion is a bad moral choice.”
—Skeptic Turtle, in a comment on my post My Brother’s Reality Intrudes
It seems to often to be the case that social conservatives will create some kind of overly harsh rule about how society “ought to be,” and then social progressives will counter by saying there should be no such rule. I suppose that sometimes that's the right answer, but I think sometimes those of us with a socially progressive outlook could learn a thing or two from the conservatives.
The Republican Spin Machine has a number of well-established conversational mechanisms for disarming opponents. One that particularly annoys me is the charge of “moral relativism.” I'm not even sure it's an accurate term in all cases where it's used, and that certainly bothers me. But what really gets me is how little effort I've seen on the Democratic side to rise to the challenge that the mere use of the term implicitly poses.
Moral relativism may be any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions regarding the differences in moral or ethical judgments between different people and cultures:
Descriptive relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences seem likely to arise.
Meta-ethical relativism, on the other hand, is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.
Normative relativism, further still, is the prescriptive or normative position that, as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.
And who could really blame its would-be defenders for not raising the issue. Take a moment’s glance to the right at the complexities of moral relativism from Wikipedia. Just skim it—don't worry about reading it in detail. The details aren't my point here, and I promise you won't be quizzed.
It's easy to see how anyone who tries to defend this philosophy will be soon drowning in a quicksand of philosophical complexity. No politician with any sense would go near such a definition of moral relativism.
And yet the charge of “moral relativism” calls for a response.
That word soup at right is the image the Republicans conjure. Left to stand undefended, the conversational result, and ultimately the political result, is often devastating. It reduces to “The Republicans offer clarity and the Democrats do not.”
For those who find themselves drawn to moral absolutism, the appeal must surely be that its meaning is accessible without inducing a headache! In other words: it's simple. Okay, some might say “simplistic,” but we'll leave that subtlety aside for now. My point is that any given instance of moral absolutism may not be what everyone wants, but it's something everyone can understand. It's a known quantity.
For example, Democrats may not like the political assertion that we should all begin the day in a moment of state-sponsored prayer, but at least we understand the words. The problem comes for those who seek a moral compass—and there are such people—because they aren't sure where morality flows from in a less absolutist system.
The leadership of absolutist political movements seem to fear loss of power and to occupy themselves with tactics to amass and defend political power. But I'm not sure that's the characteristic of the ordinary people who follow them. What drives these people seems to me not to be so much a quest for power as a thirst to have things behave in an orderly, predictable, and understandable way.
On another day, we might even ask whether such people, in spite of their pro-freedom rhetoric, might not be happier under some other system of government entirely, one that trades away freedom for orderliness, safety, and ritual. But, for today, let's take them at their word that they really do like the system they're offered, that it's just pure coincidence that attempts by “others” to use the freedoms they're offered in harmless ways seems to shake them to the core of their very existence. It leads one to ask, “What is it that scares them so?”
I think the answer is simple: They fear the unknown. They have a well-explained theory of how the world is supposed to work and they have some willingness to believe that it could work. Along come people who say there is another way, but they don't understand.
Too often, the anti-absolutists neglect the importance of providing guidance to conservatives they'd like to attract to help them navigate the non-absolutist realm, a place that must surely seem confusing to them, like driving through a town that stubbornly refuses to put up any signs labeling any of the streets. This lack of guidance makes progressive leaders easy targets for the purveyors of absolutism, who can just characterize the progressive alternative as murky. (This political tactic has come to be known as spreading “fear, uncertainty and doubt,” or FUD.)
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a tactic of rhetoric and fallacy used in sales, marketing, public relations, politics and propaganda. FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative and dubious/false information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs. ... FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.
Some adherants of moral absolutist positions may think God will simply strike down anyone who deviates, but I suspect there are plenty who aren't so literal. I bet they just want answers to simple and obvious questions like “if you can live together without a formal commitment of marriage, what happens when you get pregnant?” Or, “if it's ethical to have an abortion at one month, why isn't it ethical to have one at eight months—where is the line drawn?” (I think this was the relevance of the last sentence in Skeptic Turtle's remark to me, quoted at the start of this article.)
It isn't that religion is the only answer to how to live one's life. It's that a lot of questions come up during the living of one's life and one needs training in how to navigate. If they've trained for a life of a certain kind and now we say that life will be otherwise, they are without training and fearful.
The trouble is that the usual antidote to FUD is good, clear information. And this is something where the Democratic party has been weak. They make perfectly fine policies, but they don't always take the time to explain and motivate those policies as part of a larger tapestry. The Republicans build a narrative around their own efforts, to which the Democrats often respond with silence. So the Republicans frequently win by default. This needs to change.
“The greatest tragedy in mankind’s entire history may be
the hijacking of morality by religion.”
If you got value from this post, please "rate" it.
This is Part One of a two-part post.
Click here for Part Two.
Disclaimer: I speak in here of absolutists and also of Republicans. I don't mean to say they are the same thing. Rather, the Republican leadership has tended to articulate and promote positions based on an absolutist morality, just as the Democrats have tended toward an alternate, less articulated morality. I speak in generalizations, but this is about policy and tactics, not about labeling individuals. I hope that no readers on either side will take these remarks as any kind of personal attack.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
RomanticPoetess
Sandra Stephens
old new lefty
marytkelly
oaxacangringa
CoyoteOldStyle
Salon.com
Comments
And no matter how much the fundies try to posit that America is a Christian nation, it just ain't so. And we all know that The One True Religion is responsible for probably the majority of wars in recorded history.
When the conservatives throw mud at us with charges of "moral relativism," they ignore the complex nature of human reality. And a single standard of morality (totally undefinable even among a particular interest group of American society) has never cut the mustard.
After all, I learned that there was a difference on the frontier between lying Baptists and truth telling Baptists. The truth telling Baptists believed in a single standard of morality no matter what. And they were the ones who were killed by the Indians.
Deductive vs Inductive morals.
BTW, take away my fear mongering and I'd have no fun at all...
Jan, yes, clarity does not imply workability. But it's easy to see how overly simplistic reasoning might lead one to think it did.
Lefty, thanks for that commentary. I think our collective morality in the US (and in many free countries) has come to be about tolerance/plurality. I'll say more about that in Part Two. But something not said in the second part: Removing tolerance doesn't lead to happiness, it leads to strife like we had in Northern Ireland or still have in the Middle East. Still, it's easy to spin to people from one or the other group, if they're willing to accept the other group as a casualty, that it would help.
Ardee, I'm so glad you found it lucid. :)
Doug, since you say you'd be afraid if I told you I'd take away fear, I think fear is here to stay, one way or another.
Moral absolutes are easily expressed in simple slogans, a convenient tool for politicians seeking solely after their own power. Refutations are more complex. Many people, possibly most, don't want to give a whole lot of time and effort to politics.
I recently was engaged with a co-worker who was mocking some aspect of "Obama care." I had given some thought to what to say to her because I knew both that politics would come up between us and that there wouldn't be time to actually discuss issues, it would all have to be done in quips. I asked her if she would be ok with a system that required ambulance drivers arriving at the scene of an auto accident to ask victims for proof of insurance before taking any action. She visibly gulped then said she didn't believe that any medical care should be for profit. I took it as a small victory - in an earlier quick conversation I had pointed out to her that in Minnesota HMO's are required to be non-profit. (She gets her medical care from an excellent non-profit HMO.) This woman is a rare thing - a Michelle Bachmann voter who thinks. She is also the mother four with a very conservative husband. The two of them work hard and make just enough money to keep a very modest exurban family life going. She seems to mostly lack information that she can grasp very quickly. That's where the Dems fail, I fear - in presenting the essence of their arguments very simply.
I think that's the case with many in the Democratic party.
I'm less of a relativist than I used to be although I'm probably still a member of the 'relativist party,' if there is one. These days I'm looking more for universal/ integral truths that I'm hoping will be easier to join together on.
Moral relativism has been allowed to usurp the notions of both normative humanism and situation ethics, related methods of approaching the problem of human existence which played well together until "moral relativism" was allowed, quite passively, to hijack two very large thinking exercises and poison the process. That the term isn't even understood by those who rely on Wikipedia as the font of all (ambiguous) knowlege is catastrophic.
"We" are supposed to be smarter than that. We are supposed to be smarter than Republicans (a generic term not really always germane, but handy, our bad) and absolutists (who are certain to be wrong a good deal of the time, but only again because absolutism is handy, attractive and requires no thought).
Can't wait for the rest of this. Beautifully reasoned and conveyed. There is a gentleness in this that might well have been lost by someone else -- someone like me, for instance, who rages too often against the calculated stupidity of fellow humans -- instead of out thinking them.
Rated. Appreciated.
Roy, my goal is not to reach absolutists with this pitch, it's to set up some remarks I'm going to make in Part Two which are directed at the Democrats. So tune in for that.
denese, that's an interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing it. I'll be interested to hear what you say about Part Two if you manage to stop in for that.
AJ, I'm really glad the piece spoke to you in an appropriately gentle fashion. And it's nice to know I'm not the only one troubled by the mush that is that Wikipedia entry. I'll look for your thoughts on the next piece. :)
I wrote about cultural relativism, and planned to tackle the even more dubious moral relativism from a different angle than you have approached it here, Kent. Ethical relativism is ripe for the picking, i.e., an even more ridiculous idea.
Thank you for another thought-provoking discussion.
Rated
Pedant, I'll have to track down some of your writings on this and see what you have to say in more detail. I think it's an intrinsically icky word. It feels slippery. So it leads me to feel uncomfortable, too. Incidentally, one thing I don't like about it is that it doesn't distinguish whether individuals or groups are what are doing the relative shift. It doesn't distinguish whether the choice is in the moment or for a lifetime. It doesn't acknowledge whether the bar for a shift is whim or some serious commitment. It spans all of these, and in so doing, it has to answer for all of these. I'd rather a more specific term. So maybe that's what you meant by it being a substitute for really understanding something. I really think the main issue for society isn't coming up with something slippery or fuzzy but rather coming up with something designed for our own use (such as the US Constitution) or taking something given to us by others (such as the Bible).
I think the opposite is true -- they fear the known. If social institutions are undermined, religious values and symbols are destroyed, and traditional moral principles are ignored, what happens is chaos. There's nothing surprising or unknown about that.
Take, for example, sexual morality. Look at the devastating effects that out-of-wedlock births have had on the black community. The gay community, with rampant promiscuity, was decimated by AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Half of the 19 million annual cases of STDs occur in the 15 to 24 age group. Half of sexually active young people will contract at least one STD before age 25. And this is on top of around 1 million abortions a year.
While conservatives fear the known, social liberals ignore it. The posts on Open Salon provide a window on how social liberals see these issues. Some time ago there was an interesting post on OS in which the writer described how her teenage babysitter lost her religion and starting "putting out" for her boyfriend. This was presented as a great thing, and in the middle of a teenage STD epidemic the comments were universally celebratory and enthusiastic. In my view that doesn't even rise to the level of moral relativism. There has to be some sense of morality before it can be "relative" to something.
Kent: "The Republican Spin Machine has a number of well-established conversational mechanisms for disarming opponents. One that particularly annoys me is the charge of “moral relativism.”
On the liberal side is the charge of "hate." If someone opposes gay marriage then he "hates" gays. If he opposes abortion he "hates" women. If he opposes affirmative action he "hates" minorities and women. It's an ad hominem argument designed to shut down discussion.
In my observation, the problem with the social liberal moral argument is that they often don't have one. In its place is a radical, individualistic worldview in which people should be able to do whatever they want to do. Social institutions and traditions are held in particularly low regard. I think this is why organized religion is often seen as especially repugnant by social liberals.
Organized religion is seen as repugnant more probably because it relies on unquestioned and unquestionable doubtful authority. It's not universal but people with liberal tendencies have this disturbing drive to think about problems rather than refer to dogmatic conclusions.
heh. I admire your ability to reason. It's an unfortunate fact though, at this particular juncture in our national history, that reason and facts are viewed as liabilities by many members of our political elite, not to mention the masses they count on to gain or retain public office. Ignorance is now seen as virtue, and erudition itself is suspect. We're looking at the rise of an idiot Right which will make all previous idiocies look like happy-happy fun time. Unarticulated democratic morality? My prediction is that an unarticulated fascist morality is the wave of the future.
As for gays, if you aren't their defender, I'm not accusing you of hate nor am I hating you. However, I think you have no rationale of substance for suggesting they should not be allowed to marry, and I have articulated what I think is a rationale of substance for why they should be. I think in matters of civil rights, the bar is very high on the party who would deny a right to say why they need to—both to show harm to others and to show lack of benefit for the party that will be denied. When people charge hate, I think they're often just unable to come up with any coherent other reason why someone would make up an unsubstantiated restriction. I think they want to say to the people doing the denying, if you'll pardon the expression, “Who appointed you God?” Certainly there are religious sects that support gay marriage for example—would you say they are not entitled to do this, or would you say that their doing so is not enough to grant reason. How exactly would you address documents such as this one issued by the United Church of Christ?
nanatehay, I hope you're wrong. But I don't think you're crazy in thinking it a possibility. Thanks for stopping by.
Rated
Radical Christians also believe that non-believers have to be amoral based solely on the fact they follow no religion, at all, therefore can't possibly have their own morality based on what is right for them.
It is not a failing that Democrats don't have a clear-cut message. Any message that is made very clear is directed at a defined set of concepts, therefore, leaving groups of people out. I like to think of myself as a progressive humanitarian and, yes, I am one of THOSE: I guard what I say in groups of people in order to be sure I am "politically correct", or as I like to think of it since that phrase has been turned into a negative, that I am wary of insulting anyone within earshot. To be all-inclusive in a democracy, one must look out on a sea of faces and accept all. There is no higher power than that within us and no higher truth than human kindness.
Beautifully said Victoria.
Another thing that jumps out at me, here, is actually not the presence of something, but rather something that is missing. In the case of moral absolutists, which primarily means people belonging to a particular religion, the one thing that is always missing from their perspective is “reason” and another is any real consideration for human suffering in general. Their view is immoral in itself.
Sam Harris has a new book out, which I just got but have not had a chance to read yet, called The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. I’m sure it will be very controversial.
Rated
___________
It is dangerous to paint any group with such a broad brush. It is what makes it impossible to reach common ground. Not all religious people hate gays. In fact, probably the minority have that visceral response. The opposition to gay marriage begs the question, as it is a man-made institution to begin with. People who choose to believe what is written in a centuries-old book are not looking at it objectively. It is a legal union, and whatever ceremony and meaning attached to it on top of that is up to the individual.
Social liberals ignore the known? I just don't understand that logic. That said, not all liberals know whereof they speak. "I am against capital punishment because that is what liberals think." Why? Why are you against it? Not everyone, regardless of idealogy, can frame a non-specious argument to support their views.
Incidentally, I just saw Malcolm Gladwell speak the other day. He said that Canada was able to accomplish national health care because all the groups where able to reach a common understanding and were willing to make sacrifices to achieve that goal. I have to believe that everyone who encroaches on personal freedoms by attaching their own "morals" on public policy just want what is best for the greater good. This whole concept of relativism makes that impossible to define.
Brie, sorry about this making your brain tired. The fact that it was known to be kind of that way is one reason I split the post in half. Try the next part, which I think is more punchy. This is the the rationale for that one, and inherently abstract. That one is somewhat more action-oriented...
Victoria, it's important to be politically correct, and I laud you for it, but it's also important to be heard. For my perspectives on that, I recommend my post The Big C if you've not read it; it articulates my views on the necessity of speaking out. Thanks for your thoughtful comment in any case. (And yes, tipping would be better by PayPal, but mostly people don't use it at all, so it hardly matters.)
Rick, I directed this at Democrats because they are the de facto representative of progressive values. I know you'd like to see other options, but none credible exist right now. Still, your point is noted.
Pedant, regarding Canada, you might enjoy my The “Two Unprincipled Parties” System, which gets at why Canada probably succeeded. We seem to be drifting away from our lack of principles here. And by that I don't mean people shouldn't have principles, just that when parties are too specific (as I believe the Republicans are lately), creating litmus tests, it becomes hard for people to move between them. This message might be seen as incompatible with my remarks here, but it's not. I think it's necessary, let's say, for there to be enough similarity that people can feel comfortable shifting parties when one disappoints them, but if you make the nature of the parties too weird, they can't do that. Canada has done a good job of making the parties be about things people really might shop among. The US used to. By restoring visible morality to the Democratic party, you might consider I'm saying “take morality off the table as a reason you'd choose one party rather than another.” There are moral and immoral people in both parties. What we need are people who will solve Climate Change or protect people from exploitation or make sure business gets investment dollars; these are the things that matter. Or should.
I started writing a comment and it grew and grew until I could barely stop it. So I decided to reduce it to the following:
You write, "...I directed this at Democrats because they are the de facto representative of progressive values ..."
This is like saying that Toyota is representative of American cars.
My point has not been “noted”, it has been blown off, and in what seems to me a somewhat condescending manner. But, then, the current medium in which we are discussing this issue really doesn't afford accurate interpretations of intentions, so I'll assume you simply do not wish to address this issue I raise in this comment thread and were trying to be polite about it.
You write, “The leadership of absolutist political movements seem to fear loss of power and to occupy themselves with tactics to amass and defend political power.”
And with that, we’ve come full circle to where the head meets the tail and starts eating itself. Pelosi, Obama, et al fit your description prefectly – they have sold out progressive values in the hope of maintaining political power. But if maintaining political power necessitates selling out the very values they are supposed to represent, of what value is that power?
Progressive values are one thing; Democratic values (of the current Democrat Party) are another. Confusing the two only compounds the problem. Compounding problems is no way to solve them.
You may, quite possibly, be more stubborn than I. But I think in a duel of stubbornness, I could wear you down. ;-)
Carry on …
Myriad, I wish I knew what to change in order to fix that little detail. To some extent, I think we're casualties of a pretty regular strobing of various dogmatic mantras that cause us not to question what needs to be questioned. Although we bill ourselves as a free nation, freedom requires questioning things, and we really treat those who question our system quite badly. Moreover, we make heroes of people who succeed at others' expense. That itself is a moral issue. I wish I could repair it with a magic wand, but I appreciate your shining a spotlight on it since it's not fixed.
You manage to balance the accessible, "ruminative" style, with serious examinations of the issues. Not dumbed-down, not tediously over-done. The callouts help guide the reader.
Goes to the heart of the claim of Believers, that they "own" morality (and anything, like origins, spiritual feelings, etc). All religious thinking and sensations are manifestly a subset of human thinking, ability, experience, emotions, etc.
This also is an effective skewer of Overlapping Magesteria, the fine, late Gould notwithstanding.