Transcript The Military Professional and Respect for the Moral Law “Wrestling with Relativism”

The Military Professional
and Respect for the Moral
Law
“Wrestling with Relativism”
or, “When in Rome . . .”
5/20/2016
NE 203: Dr. Lucas
1
Some Problems from
Last Week
• CDR Tom Grassi: “Historical contexts shift,
there is sometimes “moral progress” (e.g., on
race and gender) that pose problems in new
ways”
• Ficarrotta versus Edney/Chiles: moral values
seem to vary among professions, different moral
standard for the military officer and the average
citizen?
5/20/2016
NE 203: Dr. Lucas
2
“When in Rome. . .”
Here are some odd facts
• Ancient Callatians ate the bodies of their
dead fathers (Herodotus)
• Ancient Callatians were horrified that the
Greeks cremated their dead (vice versa)
• Eskimos (Inuit?) practiced infanticide and
euthanasia (Rachels)
5/20/2016
NE 203: Dr. Lucas
3
What is the Point?
• What’s “right” is what each person (or society)
says is right
• Right and wrong are a matter of opinion
• There are no moral absolutes
• “I do my thing, you do yours. . .”
• “When in Rome (or Saudi Arabia, or wherever),
do as the Romans (or Saudis, or whomever) do!”
5/20/2016
NE 203: Dr. Lucas
4
The “Official” Response
• USNA “official” policy: “Moral Relativism is
Wrong!!” 
• Philosophers (like Porter and Rachels) have
great fun debunking relativism
• If everyone is so convinced this view is wrong,
then
1) why do we have to spend time on it?
2) maybe there is something right, or appealing
about it!
5/20/2016
NE 203: Dr. Lucas
5
Plan of Attack
• Examine different variations of relativism
• Examine the appeal of each form to the
contemporary public
• Define and distinguish “descriptive” from
“normative” theories
• Examine and analyze the argument for
“normative relativism”
• Examine some flaws and problems in this
theory
5/20/2016
NE 203: Dr. Lucas
6
Descriptive Relativism
• Different societies have different moral codes
• Naval Officers traveling the globe are going to
encounter some surprising practices
• Likewise, individuals differ in their moral beliefs
(this is why we argue so much!)
• These are summary statements of fact (that is,
these general observations seem to be beyond
reasonable doubt)
5/20/2016
NE 203: Dr. Lucas
7
Definition I
• Descriptive relativism: tastes, preferences, even
moral values, DIFFER as a matter of fact
-- from individual to individual (belief
relativism)
-- from society to society (cultural relativism)
5/20/2016
NE 203: Dr. Lucas
8
Normative Relativism
• People tend to draw some interesting and
surprising conclusions from the foregoing
observations, such as:
• “There are NO objective standards of right or
wrong – these are a matter of history and
geography (Porter)
• “We ought to TOLERATE different moral
beliefs and codes”
• “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”
5/20/2016
NE 203: Dr. Lucas
9
Definition II
• “Normative Relativism” is the theory that all of us
ought to tolerate each other’s different perspectives on
morality, because there are no absolute or objective
standards of right and wrong
• People who believe this seem to feel that normative
relativism is the logical outcome or deduction from
descriptive relativism
• “Facts” about individual and cultural differences are
thus said to establish “norms” or standards of
obligation
5/20/2016
NE 203: Dr. Lucas
10
Argument for Normative
Relativism (Rachels)
• Different cultures have different moral codes
• People (and societies) differ in their opinions over
which moral values or moral codes are correct
• “Right” and “wrong” seem to be merely matters of
opinion
• Therefore there are no objective moral standards
• And, in the absence of objective standards, we ought
always to respect and tolerate moral differences
5/20/2016
NE 203: Dr. Lucas
11
Analysis of the Argument
 Logical fallacies (circular, appeals to feelings,
statistics, “naturalistic fallacy”)
 Premises are all sound, but many are irrelevant
or beg the question
 The argument is not valid
 But the theory (either individual or cultural) may
still be true!!
 Examine the consequences of accepting it
5/20/2016
NE 203: Dr. Lucas
12
Consequences of
Normative Relativism
• The theory seems right, to an extent, in warning us not
to mistake our personal (or cultural) opinions and
habits for absolute truth
• But the theory goes on to deny that there is, or could
be, any such truth
• If so, why (for example) should I be tolerant if I
believe in intolerance? (Porter and Rachels)
• What if what the Romans do (or the Nazis, or the
Hutus) seems monstrous? How can I evaluate?
Decide? Compare? Condemn?
5/20/2016
NE 203: Dr. Lucas
13
Summary
• Relativism is a politically correct, but
confused, family of beliefs designed to
support toleration and fight bigotry
• Because of poor moral reasoning, this view in
fact fails to accomplish these goals
• Ignores large areas of cross-cultural
agreement on common moral principles (e.g.,
“Golden Rule” teachings)
5/20/2016
NE 203: Dr. Lucas
14
Solution: Moral Pluralism
• In physics, there are often rival theories, supported by
evidence, and alternative methods for arriving at solutions to
problems
• It never follows from this that all theories are equally true, or
all methods are valid!!
• Perhaps there are also, in ethics, rival versions of what
constitutes moral goodness, and multiple modes of valid
reasoning about moral questions
• This will make our task difficult, but not impossible; we don’t
need to believe in nonsense, or accept morally outrageous
conduct
5/20/2016
NE 203: Dr. Lucas
15