Moral Relativists Aren't All Bad

-
"Cicero," Cesare Maccari
Christian educators are often eager to dismantle moral relativism as part of "worldview" curricula or humanities courses. This is understandable: the vast majority of Americans are (unknowing) moral relativists in 2018, long after the position was abandoned by most serious philosophers.

But in my experience, many realist v. relativist arguments quickly devolve into shouting matches about Hitler. These rhetorical bloodbaths end with both parties feeling self-righteous and more entrenched in their position. I sense that these arguments aren't good for a Christian's witness. Why can't Christians be more persuasive on a topic where they clearly have the high ground?

One key mistake Christians make: moral relativism deserves some credit. Most moderns who repeat sayings like "everyone has their own morality" or treat ethical debates as matters of personal preference don't do so because they've carefully reflected on the nature of morality. Instead, many are trying to fairly react to the world's widely divergent moral beliefs with intellectual humility and generosity. Since it is bewilderingly difficult to adjudicate competing moral claims, they assume it is impossible. More technically, they confuse epistemology (how we discover moral truth) with metaphysics (whether there is moral truth).

You might think I'm giving relativism too much credit, but it has a kernel of truth: ethical reasoning is hard, especially when the people involved believe they live in fundamentally different universes! This is to say nothing of the endless proliferation of moral terms that we use outside of a meaningful, shared framework for understanding them -- terms like rights, duties, virtues, sins, intentions, consequences, etc.. Throw in all of our confirmation biases, our tribalism, our natural pride/competitiveness, and you can see why many people are convinced that moral argumentation is pointless and inherently manipulative.

My colleague Sean Riley often counters this mistake by asking students to imagine a cubic foot of dirt in the lawn outside our classroom. How many ants are in that cubic foot at time slice t? They speculate and take guesses, some better than others. Even though we'll never know exactly the answer, there still is a correct answer. Also, though we may never have a neat and precise answer, there are clearly better and worse answers.

This isn't a perfect analogy to ethics, especially if you believe that there are some obvious moral truths. But it is a good way of explaining the difference between the "what is" question and the "how do we figure it out" question. If you tell anyone without serious philosophical training that there are clear moral truths which apply to all of humanity, their first question will be: "how do you discover them?" This is a challenging question. It is one worth answering. But it is a different question.

Conversations with moral relativists should start by recognizing why so many of us have the instinct to abandon moral debate. Relativists need to see that they can be moral realists without sacrificing humility or generosity. Naming these instincts as virtuous often disarms relativists who have acquired such a strong distaste for moral debate. Imagine moving from Position A: "Moral debate is impossible -- there must be no moral facts" -- to Position B: "Moral debate is really, really hard, but it's important, so let's be very careful about the way we do it." The two positions are a small conceptual leap from each other but represent vastly different outlooks on the world.

Position B is also much more internally coherent. Very few relativists are really, deep down, willing to tolerate evil. They instinctively recognize injustice as injustice and demonstrate this by actively protesting it. When a relativist understands that their moral instincts are tapping into deep, mysterious, and unalterable properties of the universe, it frees them to be more human! 

 All of this to say: don't treat discussions about moral relativism with students or peers as "gotcha" moments. As a metaphysical position, moral relativism is incoherent. But most relativists are motivated by frustration with contemporary ethical debate, not careful reflection about the nature of morality. If moral relativism is a perverted version of Socratic humility, the position can be framed as almost right rather than utterly wrong -- a more winsome critique that encourages relativists to pursue wisdom without shortcuts or despair.

(Citations: Much of this is a reflection on the first few chapters of After Virtue by Alasdair Macintyre, but I also should credit David O'Hara for this excellent, measured critique of moral relativism to skeptical high schoolers.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Review: Enduring Divine Absence

-
Image
L'Absinthe, Edgar Degas (1876) While reading Joseph Minich's recent  Enduring Divine Absence ,  I was reminded of C.S. Lewis' first Screwtape Letter. In it, the demon Screwtape recalls a mini-crisis when the atheist "patient" he tempts considers Christianity. The danger passes as soon as the atheist walks out his front door: Once he was in the street the battle was won. I showed him a newsboy shouting the midday paper, and a No. 73 bus going past, and before he reached the bottom of the steps I had got into him an unalterable conviction that, whatever odd ideas might come into a man’s head when he was shut up alone with his books, a healthy dose of “real life” (by which he meant the bus and the newsboy) was enough to show him that all “that sort of thing” just couldn’t be true. He knew he’d had a narrow escape and in later years was fond of talking about “that inarticulate sense for actuality which is our ultimate safeguard against the aberrations of mere lo
Read more

Are Economists Good People? Should You Marry One?

-
Image
There are good reasons to call economics the "dismal science." Economists, Steven Rhoads jokes, see a bittersweet quality in the groundbreaking of a new community center. They might brood: "By spending money here and not elsewhere, we give up the mobile heart units that would save four lives a year, a remedial reading program ... [etc., etc.]" (22). This may be technically true. But isn't this view of life a little ... inhuman? Rhoads approvingly quotes Kenneth Boulding: "No one would want his daughter to marry an economic man, one who counted every cost and asked for every reward, [and] was never afflicted with mad generosity or uncalculating love" (34). Czech philosopher Zdeněk Neubauer suggests something similar when he argues "price is unholy."¹  Economists are suspicious of single-minded devotion to single goals at the expense of others. Because opportunity costs are everywhere, they will usually emphasize marginal investments in p
Read more

Moral Sight

-
Image
"Chop Suey," Edward Hopper If you've ever tried to explain a moral dilemma to a friend, you've likely struggled to fully articulate its complexity. There's so much more to difficult conversations or decisions than the basic "facts" we might use to describe them.  Should you confront a coworker about their recent behavior? Well -- it may depend on the moment, the mood, the time of day, etc. In “Literature and the Moral Imagination,” Martha Nussbaum argues that these ambiguities and particularities are best explored in literature -- in her words, “the novel can be a paradigm of moral activity.” In Nussbaum’s view, fiction can give us a window into the complexity of moral judgment. This is both a claim about morality and a claim about literature. Knowledge of abstract universals is not sufficient to recognize what we ought to do, but even “intellectual knowledge of particular facts” will not suffice for virtue. Instead, she argues, virtue moves beyond bot
Read more