Relativism is Irrelevant (So is Absolutism)...Let's Talk about Justification

[Leela]

Hi All,

To not believe in a single absolute standard for right and wrong that exists “out there” for human beings to conform to is not the same thing as saying that there aren’t better and worse ways for human beings to behave. Pragmatists just say that true and false and good and bad are understood in relation to some human purpose and can only be understood in practice. This view is opposed to the theist view of Goodness as an essence, but both views are rightly called morality since they are concerned with right and wrong.

The issue that I’m trying to bring out here is that even if you believe that there is a single standard of human behavior that all humans need to conform to, how could we ever evaluate one person’s claim of knowledge of this standard with another’s claim of knowledge of this standard when the two people claim to know different things? I think we all know that this in not a mere hypothetical. This is part of the human condition.

These competing claims are either born out in human experience or not. These claims need to be justified to others in the same ways that we try to justify all our beliefs when we want our private beliefs about morality to become public projects. We need to get other people on board. How do we do that? In other words, the interesting question is not about whether we think our knowledge has an absolute foundation but how we can hope to justify our beliefs to others.

Even if you feel that you have a rock solid foundation for your beliefs, it simply isn’t the sort of foundation that is philosophically interesting because it can’t supply us with knock-down arguments in support of your positions that will be convincing to anyone else.

So my question (a pragmatic one) for theists is, how could it possibly be helpful in any way to make the claim in the public sphere that your beliefs about morality come from God rather than from human experience? Aren’t you still going to need to justify your beliefs in terms of human experience when you want others who may disagree with you (which will include other believers with different beliefs) to join in with your project of creating the sort of world that you would like (or that you believe that God would like)?

How is it different in practice to say, “this is the sort of world that I think would be better for us for these reasons…” compared to “this is what God wants”? I think the answer is that the first question is useful and the second is completely useless. It is merely a conversation stopper. Someone can either agree or disagree with all the premises behind that claim, but the conversation can go no further because no one is thought to have the final say about what God wants. So God is really only relevant to private beliefs about morality and is completely irrelevant in a pluralistic society to getting others behind our public projects for creating the sort of world that we think is morally good. From the pragmatist perspective it is not that God talk is right or wrong so much as it is just unhelpful idle talk for our public moral purposes.

Best,
Leela

 

[Strawberriness]

How is it different in practice to say, “this is the sort of world that I think would be better for us for these reasons…” compared to “this is what God wants”? I think the answer is that the first question is useful and the second is completely useless. It is merely a conversation stopper. Someone can either agree or disagree with all the premises behind that claim, but the conversation can go no further because no one is thought to have the final say about what God wants. So God is really only relevant to private beliefs about morality and is completely irrelevant in a pluralistic society to getting others behind our public projects for creating the sort of world that we think is morally good. From the pragmatist perspective it is not that God talk is right or wrong so much as it is just unhelpful idle talk for our public moral purposes.

Best,
Leela

 

[Strawberriness]

How is it different in practice to say, “this is the sort of world that I think would be better for us for these reasons…” compared to “this is what God wants”? I think the answer is that the first question is useful and the second is completely useless. It is merely a conversation stopper. Someone can either agree or disagree with all the premises behind that claim, but the conversation can go no further because no one is thought to have the final say about what God wants. So God is really only relevant to private beliefs about morality and is completely irrelevant in a pluralistic society to getting others behind our public projects for creating the sort of world that we think is morally good. From the pragmatist perspective it is not that God talk is right or wrong so much as it is just unhelpful idle talk for our public moral purposes.

Best,
Leela

Leela,
I would make a disagreement to the bolded statement in you final paragraph. Catholic’s believe in the authority of the church and the fact that Christ gave the “keys” to Peter in the book of matthew to determine what to “you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Essentially given the church the moral compass which has been passed through aspostalic tradition since peter to our current pope.

Ones prepective from the outside the church would likely see the see this differently.

I realize the point you are making through your article and agree with you to the point that it’s difficult instead of “irrelevant in a pluralistic society” to encourage the moral good. Individuals that hold the bible as moral device and have certain beliefs in it’s foundation can see value in that dialogue. Others that don’t won’t see value just as you stated.

So taking the society as a whole, it may not be irrevalant to all.

Finally, and this is the real point of the my whole message. Is that the church believes that the human person contains a sense of moral goodness and through freedom and the voice of his conscience are called to a certain extent to act morally. This is inherent. Somebody can probably explain this better however it may lead to some insite in how the church preceives the inherent moral good…to an extent.

Rob

 

[Leela]

Leela,
I would make a disagreement to the bolded statement in you final paragraph. Catholic’s believe in the authority of the church and the fact that Christ gave the “keys” to Peter in the book of matthew to determine what to “you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Essentially given the church the moral compass which has been passed through aspostalic tradition since peter to our current pope.

I have no doubt that many people like yourself are convinced that they are in possession of the absolute moral standard. My point is that your standard is not universally accepted as the absolute standard, so your position is the same as the that of the so-called relativist–that of trying to justify your moral views to others. My point is that belief in absolutes or not is irrelevant because either way the issue in practice is always going to be about justifying your beliefs rather than resting on knowledge.

I realize the point you are making through your article and agree with you to the point that it’s difficult instead of “irrelevant in a pluralistic society” to encourage the moral good.

The moral good is far from irrelevant. Everyone wants to encourage the moral good as she understands it. My point is that whether or not you view morality as an absolute standard that is “out there” to be discovered is only a private matter. It is never relevant to your public projects as you try to get other people on board. To convince others we are always in the position of talking about human experience in justifying why we think something is morally good or bad. Saying that you think what you think because God wants it that way is just a conversation stopper and only meaningful to people who already share your view of what God thinks.

Best,
Leela

 

[fhansen]

So God is really only relevant to private beliefs about morality and is completely irrelevant in a pluralistic society to getting others behind our public projects for creating the sort of world that we think is morally good. From the pragmatist perspective it is not that God talk is right or wrong so much as it is just unhelpful idle talk for our public moral purposes.

On the other hand, if it were possible for people to genuinely believe in an objective morality backed up/instituted by a “Good Creator Being” (assuming we have in this discussion at least general agreement as to what constitutes good), wouldn’t that be a superior position to hold as it would mean that the existence of goodness is no mere matter of opinion and that the pursuit of good –and the avoidance of evil-would be a human value congruent with a value foundational to the existence of the universe in some sense?

And also that goodness would not be subject to change since otherwise there would be no guarantee that what a person-or even a society- holds to be good today wouldn’t be different-potentially radically different or even opposite- tomorrow? So that if, in fact, holding to this belief in objective morality and a GCB were to result in a greater inclination towards goodness in humans, then said belief, itself, might be a good and then the main question would be, does a GCB really exist and is it possible for people to genuinely believe in its existence in any case? And Christians say yes to both-that the faith they have would be impossible if not for the existence of the GCB and its ability to grant it and our ability to receive it-and that this is the surest or superior way to ensure human goodness.

 

[cpayne]

To not believe in a single absolute standard for right and wrong that exists “out there” for human beings to conform to is not the same thing as saying that there aren’t better and worse ways for human beings to behave. Pragmatists just say that true and false and good and bad are understood in relation to some human purpose and can only be understood in practice.

I desire to improve my living conditions. In pursuance of this purpose, I think I can rob people and get away with it; further, this strikes me as the quickest and best way to achieve my human purpose, at least in actual practice.

I used to think there was a standard for me to conform to which existed independently of my own purposes and practices. Thank you for helping me get over that.

 

[cpayne]

These competing claims are either born out in human experience or not. These claims need to be justified to others in the same ways that we try to justify all our beliefs when we want our private beliefs about morality to become public projects. We need to get other people on board. How do we do that? In other words, the interesting question is not about whether we think our knowledge has an absolute foundation but how we can hope to justify our beliefs to others.

Even if you feel that you have a rock solid foundation for your beliefs, it simply isn’t the sort of foundation that is philosophically interesting because it can’t supply us with knock-down arguments in support of your positions that will be convincing to anyone else.

So my question (a pragmatic one) for theists is, how could it possibly be helpful in any way to make the claim in the public sphere that your beliefs about morality come from God rather than from human experience? Aren’t you still going to need to justify your beliefs in terms of human experience when you want others who may disagree with you (which will include other believers with different beliefs) to join in with your project of creating the sort of world that you would like (or that you believe that God would like)?

How is it different in practice to say, “this is the sort of world that I think would be better for us for these reasons…” compared to “this is what God wants”? I think the answer is that the first question is useful and the second is completely useless. It is merely a conversation stopper. Someone can either agree or disagree with all the premises behind that claim, but the conversation can go no further because no one is thought to have the final say about what God wants. So God is really only relevant to private beliefs about morality and is completely irrelevant in a pluralistic society to getting others behind our public projects for creating the sort of world that we think is morally good. From the pragmatist perspective it is not that God talk is right or wrong so much as it is just unhelpful idle talk for our public moral purposes.

Best,
Leela

This is why, for public moral purposes as well as private moral purposes, the CC endorses natural law ethics, not the divine-command ethics to which you appear to be referring. The reasons behind natural law thinking are accessible to public reasoning, whether one is a theist or not.

 

[MegaTherion]

I desire to improve my living conditions. In pursuance of this purpose, I think I can rob people and get away with it; further, this strikes me as the quickest and best way to achieve my human purpose, at least in actual practice.

I would suggest that your idea of committing robbery is illogical in the highest degree.

Your ambition of “improved living conditions” depends upon the idea of individual property. When you commit robbery, you take the property of others and behave as if individual property does not exist.

Your actions are inconsistent with your goal.

In addition, your “improved living conditions” will still be in a society in which you will have to depend upon other people for food, supplies, services, etc. Violating the social contract by committing robbery undermines the very society upon which those “living conditions” are based.

In short, I think your judgment that robbery is the “quickest and best” way to achiever your purpose is demonstrably false and does not meet any reasonable standard.

See that? No supernatural forces necessary. Just logic.

 

[cpayne]

I would suggest that your idea of committing robbery is illogical in the highest degree.

Your ambition of “improved living conditions” depends upon the idea of individual property. When you commit robbery, you take the property of others and behave as if individual property does not exist.

Your actions are inconsistent with your goal.

In addition, your “improved living conditions” will still be in a society in which you will have to depend upon other people for food, supplies, services, etc. Violating the social contract by committing robbery undermines the very society upon which those “living conditions” are based.

In short, I think your judgment that robbery is the “quickest and best” way to achiever your purpose is demonstrably false and does not meet any reasonable standard.

See that? No supernatural forces necessary. Just logic.

Actually, Kant’s Imperative doesn’t work that well. All that is required for my purposes is that the majority of society members do not behave as I do. I know the majority of society members will not behave as I do, for reasons involving natural law (they are deceived into accepting basic moral rules as objective). Therefore I will steal with impunity, knowing that my living conditions will in fact improve immensely if I can get away with stealing, which I think I can.

See? Thinking pragmatically has helped change my life. You are correct that God, in this case, would not be necessary; in fact, He would be something of a hindrance.

 

[fhansen]

See that? No supernatural forces necessary. Just logic.

But there’s less certainty without a supernatural force-there’s only opinion which may or may not hold true. I may improve my lot in life-experiencing more “good” -if I rob someone else of their goods. I may improve the lot of the majority by the ethnic cleansing of others. Likewise, if altruism has only practical value, why not sacrifice and cannibalize a few if the rest of us deem that to be a good thing?

 

[Dameedna]

On the other hand, if it were possible for people to genuinely believe in an objective morality backed up/instituted by a “Good Creator Being” (assuming we have in this discussion at least general agreement as to what constitutes good), wouldn’t that be a superior position to hold as it would mean that the existence of goodness is no mere matter of opinion and that the pursuit of good –and the avoidance of evil-would be a human value congruent with a value foundational to the existence of the universe in some sense?

Wether or not an “absolute” moral code would be better for all of humanity, for society to succeed and thrive in any way, we cannot use an absolute moral code to achieve it, if that code is through a simple statment “This is what God wants”.

Anyone can make that claim.

It really isn’t a matter of what we would “like” , but what we are living with. And we are living with lots of people who all claim to have an absolute truth and a moral code all must abide by.

In reality, we simply cannot survive like this, unless we want to end up destroying each other over our truths.

You idea, about what would be “better” isn’t the point of what the OP is saying. The point is, it is irrelevant for any one person to say what IS better. The idea however, is a nice one

 

[Dameedna]

I desire to improve my living conditions. In pursuance of this purpose, I think I can rob people and get away with it; further, this strikes me as the quickest and best way to achieve my human purpose, at least in actual practice.

I used to think there was a standard for me to conform to which existed independently of my own purposes and practices. Thank you for helping me get over that.

I desire to uphold God’s truth. God told me that to preserve and protect the truth, I am to kill all that may oppose me.

I will now strap a bomb on my back, and kill the infidels to maintain the purity and truth behind my religion.

I will do this, because it is What God wants, and Gods truth is absolute.

 

[Dameedna]

This is why, for public moral purposes as well as private moral purposes, the CC endorses natural law ethics, not the divine-command ethics to which you appear to be referring. The reasons behind natural law thinking are accessible to public reasoning, whether one is a theist or not.

A couple of problems with this.

1. One must be careful to invoke “natural law”.

The laws of nature show us that we will succeed(and evolve) as a result of the survival of the fittest. Therefore, nature…indicates to us we must kill the weak.(or at least let them die)

1. Understanding how nature works means observing it, and then drawing conclusions about our observations.

The conclusions are often wrong, meaning you will have to change your mind.

How often, has there been a belief that females are “weaker” because they tend to cry more and show emotions more often? Now we realize that the part of the brain that interprets emotions, memory attatched to emotions, and understanding of emotional behaviour in humans is 3 times the size in females than males.

Would you consider a part of the brain that is 3 times as LARGE to be weaker? A mans inability to process so much emotional (name removed by moderator)ut(which is why they feel very uncomfortable with crying females) is because it is too much sensory information for the male. They simply don’t have the brain power to process it.

Should we ignore the emotional strength of the female and call it weak(and hence females need to be treated more "gently), or should we acknowlege the males inability to process emotional information?

We do not alway’s draw the right conclusions about our observations of nature.

Hence we must be careful about creating any “absolutes” in our society about anything even a supposed natural law. Absolutes, for a global society, are pretty much meaningless.

 

[Eucharisted]

What the Catholic Church believes is based on reason, reality, and history. The same goes for Judaism. It is one thing to claim something, it is quite another to actually true to one’s claim. You can find all the evidence for the Church, and many will be happy to answer your questions on Catholicism. There is also the Ask An Apologist forum where you can go to get answers to Catholic questions from Catholic apologists. And there are many Catholic sites: Vatican, EWTN, Zenit, NewAdvent, etc. It just takes time and effort to find what you need - not because the truth is hidden, but because all great tasks take time and effort. There is also Google too. And I hope that you do not have preconceived notions about the Church, or, if you do, you won’t let them get in the way of the truth. We must all submit to what is true and reject what is not true, or else we’d be living a fantasy instead of in the world.

 

[Dameedna]

What the Catholic Church believes is based on reason, reality, and history. The same goes for Judaism. It is one thing to claim something, it is quite another to actually true to one’s claim. You can find all the evidence for the Church, and many will be happy to answer your questions on Catholicism. There is also the Ask An Apologist forum where you can go to get answers to Catholic questions from Catholic apologists. And there are many Catholic sites: Vatican, EWTN, Zenit, NewAdvent, etc. It just takes time and effort to find what you need - not because the truth is hidden, but because all great tasks take time and effort. There is also Google too. And I hope that you do not have preconceived notions about the Church, or, if you do, you won’t let them get in the way of the truth. We must all submit to what is true and reject what is not true, or else we’d be living a fantasy instead of in the world.

I’m not sure you really understood the point of the post.

You can claim truth as much as you want, and call it absolute.

Another can claim the same thing.

In a global world, we won’t get very far with a collection of humans all claiming truth, no matter how much they believe it.

Absolutes, with regards to managing human society is therefore irrelevant. It won’t get us anywhere.

 

[cpayne]

I desire to uphold God’s truth. God told me that to preserve and protect the truth, I am to kill all that may oppose me.

I will now strap a bomb on my back, and kill the infidels to maintain the purity and truth behind my religion.

I will do this, because it is What God wants, and Gods truth is absolute.

I agree. Given the terms of the OP, your post makes perfect sense. It is, after all, the truth that “works” for you.

 

[cpayne]

A couple of problems with this.

1. One must be careful to invoke “natural law”.

The laws of nature show us that we will succeed(and evolve) as a result of the survival of the fittest. Therefore, nature…indicates to us we must kill the weak.(or at least let them die)

1. Understanding how nature works means observing it, and then drawing conclusions about our observations.

The conclusions are often wrong, meaning you will have to change your mind.

Again, I agree with both of these points (this time, however, I am serious, as opposed to my previous post).

Natural law ethical theory doesn’t really have anything to do with the “laws of nature,” which could be used to justify all types of things. The natural law is the moral law which is natural for human nature, not the law of the non-human world.

And I also agree that we will debate this often and change our minds often. Even those who accept natural law ethics often argue over what exactly it entails.

However, some of the basic principles are pretty well nailed down by now (e.g., it is wrong to murder, it is wrong to steal, we should take care of children, etc.).

 

[Dameedna]

Again, I agree with both of these points (this time, however, I am serious, as opposed to my previous post).

Natural law ethical theory doesn’t really have anything to do with the “laws of nature,” which could be used to justify all types of things. The natural law is the moral law which is natural for human nature, not the law of the non-human world.

The problem will always remain on who’s decision is chosen about what is natural for our human nature. Define natual, and define human behaviour.

Sex is a big one. There’s a lot of natural law thrown around about sex is based on how the end result of sex, IE children, therefore that is the “point” of sex in accordance with nature and should alway’s be respected.

Rabbits have sex for the sake of babies, even when they are dying of starvation. hmmm…

Then…you take a note of the Bonobos. Our closest relatives…the end result of sex, is not babies. It’s the removal of aggresion from socieyt. Babies, are just an added bonus. Go google them…they are my favourite animal.

Natural law, will be interpreted and when it is interpreted by those of faith, they will already have a belief about what is right or wrong. They will go looking for it, in nature.

However, some of the basic principles are pretty well nailed down by now (e.g., it is wrong to murder, it is wrong to steal, we should take care of children, etc.).

They will alway’s be debatable. But thank goodness, that we’ve decided to debate it, in the first place

 

[MegaTherion]

Therefore I will steal with impunity, knowing that my living conditions will in fact improve immensely if I can get away with stealing, which I think I can.

But you’ve just repeated yourself – you haven’t addressed my objection: that your goal revolves around the idea of private property and your means denies the existence of private property. And that your means undermines the system your goal rests on.

There is no consistency in your position.

You could try to justify it (immoral people like you always try to justify it), but you’re wrong. It’s as simple as that. Any rational person examining the situation would conclude the same.

fhansen:

But there’s less certainty without a supernatural force-there’s only opinion which may or may not hold true. I may improve my lot in life-experiencing more “good” -if I rob someone else of their goods. I may improve the lot of the majority by the ethnic cleansing of others.

No one ever said that the standard should be what is good for the individual or for the majority. It’s terribly short-sighted to be concerned only with the self or with the majority group (that’s why American law protects the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority).

Likewise, if altruism has only practical value, why not sacrifice and cannibalize a few if the rest of us deem that to be a good thing?

Because ethics are not decided by a majority vote – because what is ethical is dictated by a rational evaluation of options.

And because the fact that that example even crossed your mind is highly disturbing to me.

 

[fhansen]

But you’ve just repeated yourself – you haven’t addressed my objection: that your goal revolves around the idea of private property and your means denies the existence of private property. And that your means undermines the system your goal rests on.

There is no consistency in your position.

You could try to justify it (immoral people like you always try to justify it), but you’re wrong. It’s as simple as that. Any rational person examining the situation would conclude the same.

No one ever said that the standard should be what is good for the individual or for the majority. It’s terribly short-sighted to be concerned only with the self or with the majority group (that’s why American law protects the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority).

Because ethics are not decided by a majority vote – because what is ethical is dictated by a rational evaluation of options.

And because the fact that that example even crossed your mind is highly disturbing to me.

The reason the example crossed my mind is that the examples are played out in real life. The nazi party probably thought they were making a rational evaluation of options. Who decides who does the evaluating?