Today my group, the Philosoraptors, tackled the hard issue of Relativity, or, the belief that I can have my beliefs, and you can
have your own beliefs, and we’d both be right.
While on the surface, this strikes a chord with the our
desire to ensure world peace, the implications of this philosophical theory are
far more sinister than that; Because Relativism can’t deal with conflict (it
is, in fact, out-right ignoring and denying conflict), Relativism does
absolutely nothing to move humanity forward. For example, if the United States
was a hard-core Relativist, the North and South would still be agreeing to
disagree over slavery.
As Michele brought up, Relativism is, in itself, a logical
fallacy. If you believe in that “there is no absolute truth,” then that in-and-of-itself
is an absolute truth, much like the old “Never Say Never” adage.
Additionally, quite often, one belief is often that the
other belief should not, in any way, be carried out-- a la "Neither can live while the other survives."Many of today’s most controversial
topics—abortion, gay marriage, Israel, etc., fall under this category.
In short, the theory of Relativity is impractical. Like the
idea of the Golden Mean, we need a balance of extremes and reconciliation to
keep the world moving forward, while not creating [violent] conflict.
Our problem in society is not that we need to decide when to
practice Relativism on moral issues (a topic my group spent a lot of time
discussing), but rather that we need to learn how have a conversation with “the
other side of the aisle,” diplomatically. This can only be done when we, as
Governor Haslam said in his State of the State Address,
“…keep in mind what Senator Baker said: “The other fellow might be right.”
In other words, you have to be open
minded enough to allow for your fallibity, and try and seek an an accord,
accordingly. While this may sound quite a bit like Relativism, it’s not. Unlike
Relativism, which states that there is no absolute truth and so no one side is
more wrong/right than the other side, this view maintains that, while there are
other conclusions that other people have made, civilly discussing (read: not
ignoring!) our differences to reach a greater conclusion is necessary. Like congress, if we refuse to find a consensus, nothing will happen except escalating anger at the "other side."
To conclude, Relativism is not open
minded. The idea that I have my bubble, and that you have your bubble, and our
bubbles should never have to interact is, at best, a fantasy. You can believe
what you want, but that won’t change the world; in reality, our different
realities will interact, and we need to be equipped to deal with that
unsettling certainty.
all photos courtesy of tumblr.com
I enjoyed the summary, Matthew. It was a good mix of a summary of our discussion and some of your own thoughts in how to interpret it (which I thought were insightful).
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts sparked another idea that I had before, but had forgotten during our discussion. I want to be careful as I say this. At its core, I wonder if Relativism is a self-defensive mechanism (though that may not be how it began as a philosophy). What do I mean by that? Essentially, Relativism eliminates the possibility that you may be wrong. It's an escape, and I admit that is one that appeals to me, from conflict and from the possibility of making mistakes.
FQ: Which famous Roman emperor did Seneca tutor?
DQ: Seneca believed that living life to the fullest meant being a reclusive philosopher. How do you define living life to the fullest?
Link: Though I'm not exactly sure if they are similar, Seneca's view seems very similar to the idea of "Carpe diem" (seize the day). It's a latin phrase that I've heard many people use before, kind of like an academic form of YOLO (You Only Live Once). It think its a good phrase to know about in case it comes up in conversation.
Great summary, Matthew! I thought it was Morgan's when I first saw the memes... : )
ReplyDeleteI was a floater, and I really enjoyed visiting the different groups and hearing all the unique approaches to the topics. This group had a lot of good ideas. I liked Jake's assessment that relativism is a position that says it has no position, which is an idea Michele said is an oxymoron.
It is also ironic in that, as Chloe pointed out, relativism likes to think it's open-minded (everyone has his own truth and that's cool) when in reality it is one of the most close-minded of the philosophical views. The relativist has his truth, and since his truth is truth, no one will or can change his mind concerning that truth.
Jake also said that while there are many different beliefs floating around, it is possible to respect people who hold different views from us without relinquishing our own beliefs in the process. Matthew did a good job putting all these views into his summary and adding his own thoughts as well.
Swell job Matthew!
ReplyDeleteI had several issues with the idea of moral relativism. Major issues, quite frankly. I found that if you are a moral relativist, then you actually have no morals. To get an unbiased as possible viewpoint of what morals are, I looked it up. Thanks to Webster, we define morals to be "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior".
Here is where my biggest issue is. Let's say that I do not believe in that there should be toddler beauty contests. However you theoretically have a daughter you have entered in a competition. If I were a moral relativist, then I would be cool with that, because "its right for you". However if I actually was convicted that toddlers should not be paraded around, I would say that you are wrong.
So it might be extreme to say that pure "moral relativists" have no morals, but certainly, they do not believe in their own in this way. It is one thing to state that you have beliefs and another to take action based on these beliefs. All talk aside, moral relativism is a sneaky argument to mask the fact that you are so unsure of your own beliefs, that you give freedom to be right, in hope that you will be viewed as right also.
FQ: How did the term stoic get its name?
DQ: Is stoicism just a state of numbness or can it help people cope with pain in a practical sense without creating a sort of indifference to the world?
Question--perhaps a DQ: are you a moral relativist if you are convicted that it is bad for toddlers to be in beauty pageants, but will only enforce that belief upon your own children because "it's not your place to tell other's how to parent their children"?
Delete"moral relativism is a sneaky argument to mask the fact that you are so unsure of your own beliefs, that you give freedom to be right, in hope that you will be viewed as right also."
DeleteI really like this statement and I think it holds a whole lot of truth.
In response to Matthew's question, no I personally do not believe that is being a moral relativist. My take is that a moral relativist believes that their truth is their truth and your truth is your truth and you're both right. I don't think the person in your example thinks that it is right for other parents to put their children in pageants, even if that is what the other parent believes.
(I'm not sure if what I just said makes sense.. but it made sense in my head haha)
Great summary, Matt! I like that philosoraptor. :)
ReplyDeleteMichele, I think that you could definitely argue that moral relativists have no morals, so long as you weren't saying they were immoral (does that make sense?) I sort of think of them as universal "yes-men." They never want to offend anyone or make a fuss, so they just say yes and agree to everything. Their favorite flavor of ice cream may be chocolate but if you're only serving strawberry at your party, then that's okay, they'll deal.
I guess some could argue that they are immoral. I you are not a relativist and you say that abortion is wrong, then you would be upset if someone wanted to have an abortion. A moral relativist would say, "well, I don't think abortion is right but if you are okay with it then that's alright." So, if you think that abortion is immoral, you'll also think that the relativist is immoral for allowing the act to take place. It's a matter of perspective, I suppose.
Discussion Question: Moral relativists don't seem to want to offend anyone. They are content to have their beliefs and not question or argue the beliefs of others. Is this the same as respect/tolerance? Where is the line drawn?
Links: These are a few little comics "explaining" moral relativism that I found humorous. Enjoy, y'all!
http://tommcmahon.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/relativism.gif
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_vL9wJMNka5o/SSwvjK2vnLI/AAAAAAAAADQ/lnVzGA6HDlg/s400/moral+rel.bmp
http://themothbox.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/moral-relativism-in-a-nutshell.jpg?w=296&h=299
Also, in a universe where moral relativism was the predominant philosophy, how would education work?
Delete"So, we can see that 2 x 2 is equal to 4."
"Why, though? Personally, I feel that 2 x 2 equals 7."
"Well, if that's what you believe then that's okay."
Awesome summary Matthew, I really liked the overall balanced feel your conclusions maintained; and the Harry Potter reference was beautiful! I agree with what our group interpolated: Moral Relativism is rendered impractical when used in the context of deciding between two opposing viewpoints (gay marriage,abortion, etc.); however,(DQ) an interesting topic that we briefly discussed in class was the idea of when it's ethical to impose your will on someone else's. For example: If a man was raised in a culture that supported and actively participated in cannibalism without the consent of the consumed, should we intercede and stop them against their will?
ReplyDeleteEven if it is a cultural thing, I think that when human beings are being physically harmed, we do need to step in.
DeleteVery nice Matthew. I agree that moral relativism is completely impractical if we want to get anywhere. I find that simply listening to and being open minded about other ideas while still defending your own when necessary is the best way to go about in this world.
ReplyDeleteSo many people resort to a form relativism when they do not want to deal with another idea. They do not want to accept the possibility that what they believe is wrong, so they say everything is right. Others do it just to keep the peace. However, at some point or another we are going to be faced with a situation where we are forced to make a decision: will we sit by and let a possibly dangerous event occur just because it "works for him"?
ReplyDeleteCannibalism is sick - all sane people believe so. Are we expected to allow someone to be eaten just because the person committing this atrocity was taught that this practice is normal? Of course not! If we see someone about to be murdered, our instinct is to stop it from happening. This applies to less extreme cases as well. Most of us feel bad for someone who is bullied. Why? Because we have something in us that says degrading people is wrong. Now, not everyone listens to this moral sense; they choose to go against their conscience, which is why we are plagued with murder, rape, etc. in the world.
Where does this conscience come from? I like C. S. Lewis' view of it. He said, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”
DQ: Pulling from Jake's comment, do you believe issues such as "gay marriage, abortion, etc." should be addressed? If yes, what method would be best to use if one of the more popular methods, moral relativism, is "rendered impractical" in these cases? If you believe they should not be addressed, why?
FQ: How would Pyrrho answer this DQ?
FA: "How do we even know what is right and wrong?" *steps off cliff*
Source of Quote: C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. Harper San Francisco, Zondervan Publishing House, 2001, pp. 38-39.
While I definitely believe that cannibalism is "sick," i would most certainly be hesitant to include the "all sane people believe so."
DeleteI would certainly agree to the modified statement "all people who share our cultural values and norms," but, like anything, this is a culturally derived norm. It is not unheard of for cultures in Latin America and Africa to practice "ritual cannibalism of the recently deceased [as] part of the grieving process, or a way of guiding the souls of the dead into the bodies of living descendants...or celebration of victory against a rivel tribe."
Like these tribes, you, Keaton, also partake in cannibalism as part of a religious ritual--although in a slightly less gruesome way. Every time you take communion you are eating the flesh of Christ and drinking the blood of christ. If you were Catholic, you'd believe this to be literal.
The reason why I bring this up is merely as a warning to consider the implications of making all-inclusive, ethno-centric judgements! Pyrrho would probably have a heart attack if you said that to him. Like Kailey said though, in my opinion, "when human beings are being physically harmed, we do need to step in" (which Pyrrho would probably also have a heart attack upon hearing).
To continue playing Devil's Advocate, our first reaction when someone is screaming for help from being murdered is "let someone else take care of it," not "help the person!" In the murder of Kitty Genovese of 1964 (sidenote: a time when many more people identified as religious than in today's era), over a dozen of her neighbors heard her being attacked, crying out for help, and let her die. Since then this rather common phenomena has been called the Bystander Effect, which is basically states that as long as the possibility remains that someone else will step in, no one will.
As far as where the remainder of your post led, I will say that this it is changing the subject from Pyrrho's Relativism and When to Step In, to Does Religion Determine our Consciousness (which again, seems to imply ethnocentrism).
Therefore, to keep us on topic, I will not step in and continue that line of thought.
And to answer your DQ: absolutely. why turn a blind eye to current issues? That's not productive in the least. The best way, in my opinion, is to do as I concluded the original post, is to keep an open mind and be willing to always play devils advocate so as to truly understand the other position and realize that they might be right... or at least have elements of truth.
Oh shoot! I just realized I used Pyrrho as a relativist, which he most certainly was not... unless thinking that "well you think there's a cliff here is just fine but I don't think there is" counts as relativism!
DeleteMy bad.
Ah shoot squared!
DeleteI forgot the links!
Cannibalism, internationally
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism
The Murder of Kitty Genovese
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese
Thank you for your candid response. What is this class for but to discuss differing viewpoints of a particular subject and life in general?
DeleteFirst, I apologize for not being clear in my statement concerning cannibalism. When taken in context, one can see that I was speaking of "someone about to be murdered," which does not include cultures in their "ritual cannibalism of the recently deceased" (1). It also excludes the Catholic's view of communion. They do not view it as cannibalism. They are not murdering Jesus, but quite the opposite: they are honoring Him (2). However, I agree that I should have been more specific in my definition of cannibalism, or at least the motive behind it.
I am not Catholic. I take communion, but I do not do it thinking I am actually eating Jesus's body and drinking His blood. Rather, communion is used to remember the blood Jesus spilt (the grape juice I drink) and the flesh He allowed to be torn (the unleavened bread I eat) for our sake (2).
Regarding your Bystander Effect argument, I agree that people do not always do what is right. That's why I said, "not everyone listens to this moral sense." They may hear perfectly well their conscience pleading with them to do something about someone getting murdered, but they do not act on it. We are all guilty of rejecting our conscience, whether it is sometimes or often. It is heart breaking, but it is real. The point is that we all have that intrinsic moral code, and we need to try to follow it.
Concerning your example, a 2007 study found that no one actually witnessed the entire attack. People throughout the apartment complex saw and heard pieces of the altercation (the culmination of which occurred in an exterior hallway) and underestimated its seriousness. I'm not saying "no one did wrong" but I am saying that a dozen people didn't just stand there and watch someone rape and murder a girl. The Kitty Genovese murder actually prompted some communities to start Neighborhood Watch programs to "aid people in distress." It also led to "reform of the NYPD's telephone reporting system" in order to enhance their performance in stopping crime (3). If people did not really care about others, they would not be concerned with changing their behavior. Also, in my limited research of this murder, the religious beliefs of the witnesses were not mentioned, so I don't think that comes into play here.
I do not believe I was making or implying ethnocentric judgments. In the spirit of this CoPhilosophy blog, I was merely adding to our "collaborative search for wisdom" by sharing my beliefs about God, and using the murder and consumption of a person as an example in my thoughts on doing what is right. I apologize if you were offended; that was not my intention in the least when I posted.
Sources:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism
(2) http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html
(3) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:19-20&version=NIV
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese
Edit: Source 3 goes with the third paragraph on. Source 4 goes with the Genovese paragraph.
DeleteI forgot to add a FQ!
ReplyDelete"What does Pyrrho believe to be the secret to happiness?"