Tracey Stevens And Relative Morality

Articles

Tracey Stevens And Relative Morality

By Frederick Smith
July 17, 2006

This is a response to this article, written by Tracey Stevens.

There are differing views on morality and how we came about them. To some, morality evolved along with humans. Moral behavior isn’t an absolute but relative to society and culture and ethical behavior is nothing more then a social contract to insure survival. Individuals are obligated to obey those rules. If morality isn’t absolute then it does raise some interesting problems.

It is not that so much that problems are raised, but rather, that we must face certain uncomfortable truths about the world and human nature.

During the Nuremburg Trials, the Nazis indeed raised this as a defense. In his book, The law above the law, John Warwick Montgomery describes the argument as follows:

“The most telling defense offered by the accused was that they had simply followed orders or made decisions within the frame work of their own legal system, in complete consistency with it, and they therefore ought not rightly be condemned because they deviated from the alien value system of their conquerors.”(1) This was obviously not accepted as a defense as in the words of chief counsel for the United States, Robert H. Jackson, “[the tribunal] raises above the provincial and transient, and seeks guidance not only from international law, but also from the basic principles of jurisprudence which are assumptions of civilization…” (2) As we see, some things are just wrong regardless of what society says, forced labor and genocide being a few of them.

Some interesting philosophical and moral conundrums, to be sure. Oliver North also said that he was just following orders. Everything must be weighed. Most people, myself included, think that sometimes, regrettably, some wrongs must be committed for the greater good. Keeping a society following the rule of law in order to avoid chaos and maintain stability are sometimes what I would call good, as it may prevent greater suffering. For example, my hope is that China can avoid a massive civil war as its people want more freedoms. Thomas L. Freedman calls this impending event, and I'm paraphrasing here, “the big bump on the 6 lane economic highway” in his book, “The World Is Flat”. Imagine the death toll which could result! I'd much rather see, in the short term, a continuation of some repression of what we call human rights if it allows a smoother transition to freedom and democracy in the future.

Having said that, who am I?! What right do I have to have such an opinion? Has my father been taken and imprisoned for 20 years for speaking out against the State? The attempt to live a moral life is to be confused. With apologies to Tracey, there are no easy answers. Of course I think that Hitler was immoral, but only when weighed against what I consider my personal moral view, much of which comes from naturally evolved empathy and the code of humanism.

Was Hitler's Germany bad enough to warrant the fire bombing of Dresden? Is any particular German soldier immoral for shooting back if his life depends on it? What if he's been conscripted? It depends entirely on the situation. Absolute morality simply cannot exist in such situations. What would it entail? What does it mean? Tracey refers specifically to Christian morality. Does loving your neighbor mean that fighting a war is moral? It depends on the neighbor and his actions, doesn't it? Accepting casualties for a greater good is another way of saying that we must weigh morals based on the situation, we must weigh them relatively.

I think US role in WW2 was, for the most part, rather correct. One group of humans did that which I consider immoral, another group did what I consider moral. Thou Shalt Not Kill Except To Prevent Genocide, In Which Case Killing Civilians Is OK? Ironic. The Bible is riddled with genocide – ethnicity and maintaining blood lines seem to be Old Testament virtues. The largest Christian sect in the world also turned the other cheek during that war, happy that fewer Jews would result...

Another problem is that there can be no such thing as an immoral law. As society is the final measure of morality, then all of its judgments are moral by definition. Before new laws are enacted doesn’t it make sense to question not only the legality but also is the law just and good? If these are good questions then there would appear to be a difference between sound moral behavior and what a person has the right to do. If courts and law define morality, then neither laws nor the courts can ever be immoral.

Just and good according to what standards? Is killing an early fetus good or bad? What does the science tell us? If we follow what some Christians tell us, then what prevents us from listening to Hindu concerning rodents? Rodents are reincarnated ancestors, you see, and killing them is bad. Many would argue that we should listen to the Christian view, and ignore the Hindu view, because there are more Christians here. But in that case, wouldn't this simply be another level of relative morality, based on the assumption that the Christian majority is correct?

Tracey's views ultimately only make sense if one believes in the existence of a Christian God AND takes very specific interpretations of Christian holy text. Morality is relative, it is what we make it – however, we should strive for a moral code, subjective or not. But we should not base that code on dogma! The conflicts which arise from dogma differences accounts for much of the suffering in the world.

Moral reform, from either inside the society or outside the society is also a problem. Reform is typically from the inside, reformers judge society and then if there is perceived problems, they campaign for change. With morality being defined by the present society, then wouldn’t the challenge be considered immoral? After all, they would be considered going against what the culture considers ethical and moral behavior?

Why would this be automatically immoral or unethical? Christianity follows the whims of society as well. The Bible tells us that women are to not to handle money, and indeed, it used to be so. Society changed this; while such a system may have some value in some tribal societies, it is not relevant in modern society.

Then there is the question of how moral behavior evolved. If moral behavior evolved then isn’t it no more then self-interest in disguise, since evolution is all about survival? Doesn’t it break down to if you don’t conform to society’s standards, then we’re going to insure that your gene’s don’t get passed on? How about immoral behavior that doesn’t interfere with survival? Picture torturing a condemned criminal to death, someone that society has agreed shouldn’t be allowed to live. Still repugnant isn’t it? How about lying? Does lying threaten survival? Probably not however we still know that it’s morally wrong and we take offence when we are lied too.

Being a thinking being is tough; think deeply about even the most mundane topic, let alone the big questions, and you end up feeling uncomfortable. For example, one can say that true altruism doesn't exist. Let's say that I help someone. Doing this makes me feel good, even if it costs me financially or in other ways. Would I help someone if helping didn't make me feel good? Would anyone? Would I have sex if sex didn't feel good? Would I eat if food didn't taste good or my stomach wouldn't complain? Evolution seems to have given us the tools required for living a good life and enjoying oneself in the process. As animals evolved more complex brains, simple instinct wasn't enough anymore. Other motivations had to be given.

Empathy, like love, evolved to help with the bond between mother and child, father and mother, father and children and so on. Empathy helped higher creatures bond with each other and foster the kind of community which allows a group to survive. Yes, it's ultimately still greedy. Picking the bugs off of your buddy doesn't help you directly, but if that buddy is another healthy individual which can yell when a predator approaches, it could save your neck in the future.

There are records of higher animals drying from what certainly seems like grief, starving after the loss of a close relation – not by some medical condition, but simply by a lack of will, a will so strong that it runs contrary to the instinctual need to eat. Elephants will help each other out of holes. The roots of what we call compassion and morality are all over the animal kingdom, as are the roots of what we call evil, tribalism, greed, and so forth. Even lying – many bird females risk punishment and take off to have “illegitimate” sex with other males. This increases her chances of having babies, but she must hide this fact from her mate. If he finds out, he may find another more loyal mate. He, after all, evolved to see his sperm turn into chicks. He must invest his time feeding and caring for his own genes. There are many examples of lying in nature. Humans lie all the time, but interestingly, we call lies for a “good” purpose, “white lies”, and lies for greedy purposes immoral. Depending on how one frames the argument, this sounds like relative morality once again.

If morality is defined by society, then one society does not have to right to force its views on another. The individuals in that society are morally obligated to follow the rules and laws of that society and even to participate in the activities of that society.

Why in the world not? Where does that logic come from? If one society is stronger it will often impose its will onto a lesser society. The results, again, are relative, confusing and open to interpretation. Take African tribes. Many are self-sufficient and doing fine, with cultures going back many generations. Women are treated as property in some of them. My view is that this represents a wrong. My hope is that as such areas advance, that they will give up their old ways and give their women freedoms. In that process, their culture, which is every bit as valid as the ancient Jewish cultures of the Bible (and often, every bit as brutal), will likely be destroyed/abandoned. Again, confusion, again, relativity.

Certainly Christianity isn't right and moral merely because it's dominant here. Islam is the fastest growing faith – will that faith and its morals be “correct” once it is dominant?

The Christian believes that our moral behavior is God given. So, morality does not change with the ebb and flow of cultural beliefs. Certain things have been wrong in the past, are wrong now and will continue to be wrong in the future. Our conscience tells us that.

And certain things were wrong in the past, but are right today, while other things were right in the past, but now considered wrong. The Christian believes what most adherents of most other faiths believe; there is nothing special or unique here. They believe in a supernatural entity which has handed them a set of rules. Those rules have been adapted to the modern world as most sets of rules have. Those rules are no more, or less correct, than the rules of any other culture or faith. Rather, their correctness can't be compared to any absolute fixed post but must merely be evaluated by the only creatures capable of such evaluation: humans.

Tracey is correct, we should listen to our naturally evolved conscience more. The notion that restricting the rights of a homosexual for his own good certainly raises my empathy meter. The notion that interracial marriage is wrong in the eyes of God certainly makes me sad (conservatives in the very recent past punished and prevented mixed couples, as per the Bible).

Many modern Christians in the West have gotten past these issues using relative morality along with everyone else. Oh, they may use a theological argument, using this Bible passage or another, but the opposing, conservative side does the same. For example, Tracey has various more modern opinions on some of these issues.

The Catholic church has a notion that the scripture itself is never wrong, merely how we interpret it. So, as we learn more and change, we interpret it differently. Come on folks! Isn't this really just relative morality worded differently? Perhaps the real difference between humanists and modern enlightened Christians is that humanists are honest with themselves.

There are probably a set of what we might call near-universal rules (don't kill and don't steal, for example), but that's not directly related to relative morality. Relative morality comes into play when we expand to the greater circumstances – when is it OK to kill? To a pacifist, never. To most people, sometimes. Many get around using the “relative morality” label by redefining what “kill” means, suggesting, for example, that defending yourself is not killing, that capital punishment is not killing, that fighting a war is not killing, that terminating animals for food and/or sport is not killing, and so forth. So be it – this merely moves the relativity to the arena of word-semantics, but the result is the same. While many may argue that there there are what seem to be universal rules, this is entirely different from absolute morality. After all, it's not hard to imagine that one species will adhere to some standard, evolved, rules.

------------

About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys.

I now have a blog that I will start to increasingly maintain and update. Here is the link:

fredsuberview.blogspot.com/

About my personal background and life: I was born, I got some education, worked, ate, and had some kids. It seems I like to write � something that was unknown to me until relatively recently...How's that for detail? ;)

Hate mail is welcome unless you are from the Army Of God. Please! It's not that I mind seeing pictures of aborted fetuses in my inbox, but once you've seen one you've pretty much seen them all...

Email: dahlek65@gmail.com

Comment on this article here!

------------

All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal).