Over on Devil's Advocate, I asked Robbie to clarify something he said about morality in this post. And once he clarified that, I asked him to clarify some more. This he has done. I had a pretty good idea from the beginning where his ideas on morality lay, but I didn't want to speculate on them and unfairly interpret what he was thinking. He's given a pretty good account of his thoughts and rather than commenting on the post, he has requested blog posts in response. So here t'is. First, I suggest reading his posts, so you can get a background on things.
Robbie is contending that morality is relative and subjective and he has given several cases that have led him to this conclusion. Some think same sex marriage is wrong, some think it's right. Some think beating a girl for dating outside her religion is right, some think it's wrong. Same with the varying opinions on Gitmo and cannibalism, etc. Because there are all these diametric differences, there is no universal moral code.
This is another version of an argument long ago given shape by Herodotus. He recounts how the Persian King Darius called together some Greeks who cremated their dead and some Callatians (an Indian tribe) who ate their dead. Darius asks the Greeks what it would take for them to engage in Callation cannibalism and the Greeks are naturally disgusted by the notion. Similarly, the Callations were repulsed at Darius’s suggestion that they cremate their deceased. So the reasoning goes that group 1 thinks A, and group 2 thinks not-A, so therefore morality is purely relative.
I take it this is Robbie's main argument. We can get into subjectivism, but he seems more concerned with cultural relativism which says that what morality is determined by the culture or society in which one lives. Here's the problem with this: it's wrong. I know that this may seem like a minor worry at first, but hear me out. What Robbie's asserting is often called the argument from disagreement. I'll attack it on several fronts.
First, the argument is not sound. Observe the following. This is technically the cultural differences argument, but you can see how it may be easily changed to the argument from disagreement.
The argument runs thus:
1) Culture 1 believes practice A is wrong.
2) Culture 2 believes practice A is right.
3) Therefore, practice A is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter a matter of opinion.
This is extended to the more general form (as nicely put by James Rachels):
1) Different cultures have different moral codes
2) Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.
As I said, the argument isn't sound. Note that in the premises, we're talking about moral beliefs. The conclusion, though, is talking about objective truth. You can't go from saying that because there are different moral beliefs that there is therefore no such thing as objective morality. That is, disagreement about moral beliefs does not mean that there are thus no objective moral truths.
I think this is the main problem with Robbie's position. What he's talking about in his post is moral beliefs, which is not the same as morality. Furthermore, as I said, it doesn't follow from the fact that because there are different moral beliefs that there is no objective morality. It just means that there are lots of people out there with moral beliefs that are wrong and others who moral beliefs are right. The argument would be analogous to saying that merely because scientists disagree on the nature of matter that there must be no objective truth about the nature of matter.
But let us continue to bash relativism. There are other consequences of the theory that are undesirable.
Second, if cultural relativism is true, then we are unable to say other cultures are inferior to our own. The committed relativist would probably see this as a virtue, but look at what this means. According to relativism, a culture determines what is right and wrong in that culture based on its own mores and beliefs. So if a culture believes stealing is wrong, then it is true that stealing is wrong. If the culture next door declares stealing is right, then it is true that stealing is right. Leave aside the fact that this entails there are contradictory "truths" running around (which logic demands one must be false). Since each culture's moral beliefs are true, they are all on the same moral plain. So I can't say that a culture that practices slavery is morally inferior to my own or that Nazi Germany was morally inferior to my own. I'm forced to say that their morality was equal to my own as they are all equally true. To claim that Nazi Germany was morally inferior to American culture, one must adhere to objective moral truths against which the moral states of cultures may be judged.
Third, what's right and wrong is discovered just by looking at a society and what its standards are. This means we cannot even criticize the morality of our own society. Whatever the social norms that society has, those are its moral beliefs, and they constitute morality itself. That means that since, say, slavery was a social norm in 1820 America, those who advocated the abolition of slavery were advocating immorality as they contradicted those social norms. Similarly, anti-segregationists were acting immorally. But surely we don't want to say all these fine folks were acting immorally. We believe they were acting morally in an immoral system. To say that, though, you must adhere to some kind of objective morality and not relativism.
Fourth, there cannot be moral progress. This builds on what I have previously said. If relativism is true, then one cannot say that current American culture has morally progressed from times when it supported slavery and segregation. What the culture believed was moral in the past was moral at that time. As much as one can't say that other cultures are morally inferior to our own, one also can't say that our past culture was morally inferior to its current state. Clearly, though, we think that American culture has had moral progress. If we think that, then we must adhere to some kind of objective morality that acts as a standard against which we can judge moral progress.
Robbie thinks that moral codes are developed in and determined by the culture in which lives. That's true and I have no objection to that. Those, though, are merely moral beliefs, they do not constitute morality itself. From the fact that different cultures have different moral beliefs, it does not follow from this that there is no objective morality against which those moral codes stand as right or wrong.
Since I'm on a roll, I'll go ahead and discuss subjectivism since Robbie leans briefly in that direction as well. This doctrine declares that what is right and wrong is dependent on the individual and his/hers personal beliefs. If I believe stealing is wrong, then it is true that stealing is wrong, at least for me. Another person could believe stealing is right, and then it is true that stealing is right, at least for him. Notice again, though, that we are only talking about moral beliefs and that because there is disagreement on those beliefs, this does not mean there is no objective morality.
Let's continue with this. If I say, "Stealing is wrong," then under simple subjectivism, I am saying no more than "I disapprove of stealing." I am not making an objective claim about morality, I am only declaring the fact that I disapprove of stealing. This entails a couple of things.
First, this does not account for fallibility. If simple subjectivism is true, then every moral statement I utter is necessarily true. This is because the moral claim is reduced down to a fact about what I approve or disapprove of. If I say "Stealing is wrong," and this is reducible to the fact that I disapprove of stealing, then it is true (as long as I'm being genuine) that I disapprove of stealing. I am infallible as all my moral beliefs are true. While I've tried to convince my wife that I am indeed infallible, I have so far been unsuccessful and justifiably so.
Second, there can be no moral disagreement. Since moral statements are reducible to facts about of what one approves or disapproves, then if I disagree with you about a point of morality, then I am really disagreeing with the fact that you disapprove of something. It would be somewhat absurd of me, though, to argue that you don't really disapprove of something when you clearly do disapprove of it. For example, if you say, “Stealing is wrong,†and I disagree with you, then what I’m really disagreeing with is the fact that you disapprove of stealing and I’m therefore contending that you really approve of stealing, not that stealing itself is right.
So again, this theory of morality does not work. One more point I’ll raise is that Robbie claims there is no universal moral code. This depends on how you use the term ‘universal.’ In the sense that there is no moral code that everybody endorses, the claim is true. Moral objectivists (such as myself), however, mean there is a universal moral code in the sense that it applies to everybody.
So, Robbie (or anybody else), in the face of these objections against relativism and subjectivism, what say you?
(Submitted to Wizbang's Carnival of Trackbacks)
