Maybe you've
heard the true story about a philosophy student who wrote a research
paper arguing that there are no objective, universal moral principles.
Judged by its research, scholarship, documentation and argumentation,
it was easily an "A" paper. The professor, however,
took one look at it, pulled out his red felt pen and wrote "
‘F’ - I do not like blue covers." When the student
got his paper back he stormed into the professor's office, "This
is not fair! This is not just! I shouldn't be graded on the colour
of my cover, but on the content of my paper!" The professor
asked if the student was referring to the paper which argued that
there are no objective moral principles such as fairness and justice.
The student replied, "Yes, yes, that's the one!" The
professor responded, "Well... I do not like blue covers.
The grade will remain an 'F."' Suddenly the student realized
that he really did believe in objective moral principles like
fairness and justice, and he was expecting them to be applied
to his situation right then and there.i
IS MORALITY OBJECTIVE AND OBLIGATORY?
Statistics
tell us that most of us claim to be moral relativists, yet I suggest
our behaviour reveals otherwise. While it is very easy to say
there are no objective moral obligations, it is much more difficult
to live as if there are none. Our reactions when we are mistreated
reveal what we really believe about morality.
What
do we mean by objective moral obligations? We mean objective in
contrast to subjective. If morality were merely subjective and
nothing more, then moral judgments
would be like judgments of personal taste, nothing more. For instance,
in matters of personal taste, I may like basketball, you may like
hockey; I may like pie, you may like cake; I may like rock music,
you may like classical. These are matters of personal taste, strictly
subjective. Two of us can make conflicting statements and both
be correct. If morality were strictly subjective, then moral judgments
would be exactly like judgments of personal taste. There would
be no question of them being right or wrong. Conflicting opinions
about rape, for example, would be no more right or wrong than
conflicting opinions about Big Macs vs. Whoppers, because the
truth or correctness would simply depend upon the attitude, opinion,
or belief of an individual subject or person.
On the other hand to say that morality is objective is to say
that the truth of moral judgments does not depend upon the attitude,
opinion or belief of an individual or group. Objective moral principles
are true independent of anyone's opinions. For example, 2+2=4
is objectively true whether anyone thinks so or not. To say that
morality is objective is to say that we don't invent it, we simply
recognize it.
The statement that "there are 100 people in this room"
is either true or false in an objective sense. One can't justifiably
claim that it's true for you that there are 100 people in this
room, but that's not true for me. If someone stood up and said,
"No I think that there are only three people in this room",
how would the rest of us respond? We might say it's a free country;
go ahead and disagree. We might even defend his right to disagree,
but we would never say the person is right or telling the truth.
He just happens to be plain wrong on this point. This is because
the number of people in this room is an objective fact independent
of anyone's agreement or disagreement with it.
Now the question is "Are there any objective moral principles
that are obligatory in nature and binding on all people?"
Because of major disagreements in our society over ethical questions
like abortion, euthanasia, pre-marital sex and capital punishment,
many people think that ethics is subjective, that is, relative
to the opinions of individuals or cultures. I have found, through
the numerous public debates I've had on the subject, that the
vast majority of philosophy professors are not willing to publicly
defend moral relativism. They tend to agree that there are objective
moral obligations, even if they can't provide a foundation for
them. Why is that? Because, as I said earlier, it is very easy
to say there are no objective moral obligations but it is much
more difficult to live as if there are none. Our reactions when
we are mistreated reveal what we really believe about morality.
OUR REACTIONS AND JUDGMENTS
Most people cannot help believing that when someone else wrongs
them the act is really wrong. If we are beaten and robbed, it
will seem to us that the person has truly abused us. We simply
would not accept the claim that the assailant felt the actions
were "right for him." These actions were wrong. He should
have recognized this and regretted his actions. And even more
telling, the perpetrator would feel the same way if someone did
it to him.
Our true ethical position is further betrayed by our judgments
about the way others are treated. For example, we believe that
it was morally wrong for the Nazis to perform medical experiments
on Jews. And not only do we think it is wrong, we think everyone
should think it is wrong, including the Nazis. We think apartheid
was unjust, that white Afrikaners should not have oppressed black
South Africans. But not only do we think it was unjust, we expect
everyone to agree especially white Afrikaners.
All of us believe that torturing babies and raping four year old
girls is morally reprehensible, and that everyone should agree.
Despite the fact that there are areas of disagreement among us,
examples abound that show we do believe some actions are objectively
evil and others objectively good. Our reactions show that we do
not believe that ethics are just relative.
If we still claim to be ethical relativists, we must be willing
to concede that it's morally acceptable for people to physically
attack us and steal our belongings, for our papers to be graded
on the basis of the colour of the cover and for Nazis to kill
Jews. We need to be willing to say that it's quite all right for
white Afrikaners to oppress black South Africans and for sadists
to abuse children and torture babies. If we are not prepared to
affirm these actions, then we are not ethical relativists.
I am not claiming that morality is objective just because there
is widespread agreement about the evil of these atrocities. Rather
I am appealing to each of us to admit that deep down we think
these actions are horribly wrong and that we also think everyone
should agree. Therefore, regardless what we say our position on
morality is, we actually do think objective moral obligations
exist.
The way out of the argument is to simply deny that these atrocities
are truly evil. I'm confident though, that an honest person will
not be able to do that. The honest person is faced with a dilemma.
If there is no objective morality, then our deepest intuitions
which tell
us these acts are evil, are delusions! We are mistaken! We may
feel very strongly about the evil of these actions. We may even
all agree, but we are wrong! Now, how likely is that? How likely
is it that these intuitions are incorrect and that killing Jews,
oppressing blacks and torturing babies is really not wrong?
John Healy, the executive director of Amnesty International, a
non-religious organization, in a recent fund-raising letter, displayed
the same confidence in people's true beliefs about morality that
I am,
"I am writing you
today because I think you
share my profound belief
that there are indeed some
moral absolutes. When
it comes to torture,
to government-sanctioned murder,
to 'disappearances' - there are
no 'lesser evils.'
These are outrages against all of us."
CONTINUE:
Cultural Relativism
