Absolutism vs Relativism

[7starmantis]

We are having a discussion in another thread about absolutes and how they can or cannot exist. I would love to continue the discussion here.

Take for example the current discussion of rape. Many say rape cannot be listed as an absolute wrong because it could be accepted by some cultures. To that I ask what do we define as culture? Are we talking about male only culture? By its very meaning, rape is not accepted by both parties. This means one person does not accept it. This means the two people's culture could not accept rape. So by its very existence it is not accepted....how can we then turn a blind eye and say its not wrong because someone might accept it? I propose that the only ones accepting of rape are those committing it, not receiving it.

From the other thread:

One assumption that seems to be taken by all througout this discussion, is that all humans have equal rights. This is not now, nor ever has been the case.

Yet we dont agree with this as correct do we? I mean, equal rights should also be one of those absolutes we are discussing. Your correct though, without human rights, the value of rape is moot, its very relative then.

Throughout all of history, communities would view 'others' as chattel. Was Thomas Jefferson committing rape when he impregnated Sally Hemings? The young Hemings girl was a slave. She had no rights. Could she have cried rape?

Now, honestly, I don't know what Jefferson and Hemings relationship was like, except that when Jefferson was in France, the Hemings girl was in her early teens. And it is assumed they were intimate at that time. (Is intimate the correct word?).

Thats a great point, but one we will probably never know the answer to. However, does the answer change how we view rape? If he did commit rape, should we then consider it acceptable? Regardless of his actions or anyone elses, I think rape is absolutely wrong....I dont think there exist in reality a situation where it can be accepted.

So, before every decries rape as a universal wrong, I think an examination of the de-humanization that some cultures participate in should be carefully reviewed.

Haven't armies throughout history dehumanized their enemies? Might the result of that be sexual assault that is not 'rape'? Can you rape a living creature that is less than human?

I think again your using history to decide current questions. Accepting and believing in de-humanization is the only way for that to make a difference in this dicision. There is probably not a better known case of de-humanization than that of the native americans (although the truth is seldom learned). Lets take that example....so its not rape because the NA woman your forcing into sexual acts is not really human. Well, what does she think? Are we to assume that only the male or powerful are worthy of contributing to the belief system or human rights system? Rape isn't wrong because the rapist thinks it is, its wrong because it violates the rights of other human beings.

The military example is good, but fails in that just because the person committing the rape may not view it as rape, doesn't mean its not rape. This is a completely one sided view of it. Because the young native american girl is not viewed as human or worth anything doesn't mean raping her is then ok. Its not a one sided issue, it takes two people to perform a rape, and so both should contribute to the issue.

7sm

 

[Tgace]

Inalienable Rights

The government of the United States is the result of a revolution in thought. It was founded on the principle that all persons have equal rights, and that government is responsible to, and derives its powers from, a free people.

Moral Realtivism is UNAMERICAN.

 

[AdrenalineJunky]

This is precisely the kind of question I would be happy to discuss over a scotch. . .but it would be waaaaaay too involved a task to type it.

 

[Tgace]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/#4

Relativism and Tolerance

Relativism is sometimes associated with a normative position, usually pertaining to how people ought to regard or behave towards those with whom they morally disagree. The most prominent normative position in this connection concerns tolerance. In recent years, the idea that we should be tolerant has been increasingly accepted in some circles. At the same time, others have challenged this idea, and the philosophical understanding and justification of tolerance has become less obvious. The question here is whether moral relativism has something to contribute to these discussions, in particular, whether DMR or MMR provide support for tolerance. In this context, tolerance does not ordinarily mean indifference or absence of disapproval: It means having a policy of not interfering with the actions of persons that are based on moral judgments we reject, when the disagreement is not or cannot be rationally resolved. The context of discussion is often, but not always, moral disagreements between two societies. Does moral relativism give us a reason to be tolerant in this sense?

Though many people seem to think it does, philosophers generally think they are mistaken. DMR may provide the occasion for tolerance, but it could not imply that tolerance is morally obligatory or even permissible. DMR simply tells us there are moral disagreements. Recognition of this fact, by itself, entails nothing about how we should act towards those with whom we disagree. MMR fares no better. For one thing, MMR cannot very well imply that it is an objective moral truth that we should be tolerant: MMR denies that there are such truths. (A mixed position could contend that tolerance is the only objective moral truth, all others being relative; but it would have to be shown that this is more than an ad hoc maneuver.) It might be said that MMR implies that tolerance is a relative truth. However, even this is problematic. According to MMR, understood to concern truth, the truth-value of statements may vary from society to society. Hence, the statement, "people ought to be tolerant" (T), may be true in some societies and false in others. MMR by itself does not entail that T is true in any society, and may in fact have the result that T is false in some societies (a similar point may be made with respect to justification).

Some objectivists may add that in some cases we should be tolerant of those with whom we morally disagree, but that only objectivists can establish this as an objective moral truth (for example, by drawing on arguments in the liberal tradition from Locke or Mill). To the objection that moral objectivism implies intolerance (or imperialism), objectivists typically contend that the fact that we regard a society as morally wrong in some respect does not entail that we should interfere with it.

Nonetheless, the thought persists among some relativists that there is a philosophically significant connection between relativism and tolerance. Perhaps the conjunction of MMR and an ethical principle could give us a reason for tolerance we would not have on the basis of the ethical principle alone. Such an approach has been proposed by Wong (1984: ch. 12). The principle is, roughly speaking, that we should not interfere with people unless we could justify this interference to them (if they were rational and well-informed in relevant respects). Wong called this “the justification principle.” Of course, it is already a tolerance principle of sorts. The idea is that it gains broader scope if MMR is correct. Let us suppose the statement that there is an individual right to freedom of speech is true and justified for our society, but is false and unjustified in another society in which the press is restricted for the good of the community. In this case, given MMR, our society might not be able to justify interference to the restrictive society concerning freedom of the press. Any justification we could give would appeal to values that are authoritative for us, not them, and no appeal to logic or facts alone would give them a reason to accept our justification.

If the justification principle were widely accepted, this argument might explain why some people have had good reason to think there is a connection between relativism and tolerance. But there is a question about whether the position is stable. Wong derived the justification principle from Kant, and Kant rejected MMR. If we were to accept MMR, would we still have reason to accept the justification principle? Wong thought we might, perhaps on the basis of considerations quite independent of Kant. In any case, this argument would only show that MMR plays a role in an argument for tolerance that is relevant to people in a society that accepted the justification principle. The argument does not establish that there is a general connection between relativism and tolerance. Nor does it undermine the contention that MMR may have the result that T is true in some societies and false in others.

 

[arnisador]

The key issue here, I think, is that the act in question is characterized by being against someone's will. So at heart the issue is, When can one justify imposing one's will on another?

I too find this an absolute wrong...but as it is clearly tolerated in some cultures, I don't know how to argue for my position should one question it. There is no universal moral common ground, is there? We either choose to accept that some things are right and others are wrong, or we must agree to disagree (and then abide by the law, which is different).

 

[Tgace]

I too find this an absolute wrong...but as it is clearly tolerated in some cultures, I don't know how to argue for my position should one question it. There is no universal moral common ground, is there?

Try raping the other person and see if they think its morally wrong?

:idunno:

 

[mrhnau]

Try raping the other person and see if they think its morally wrong?

:idunno:

I'm sure many people on death row find it morally objectable, especially considering their circumstances. Anyone being murdered/assaulted in any fashion is likely to find it morally objectable. I would be more interested in the perception of society as a whole, unless justice is to be served only by the victim.

 

[7starmantis]

Exactly my point. We say other cultures accept it. My question is what defines culture? The person being raped certainly doesn't accept it, so are they just not a voice of the culture or what? Rape is only rape if one doesn't accept it. How can a culture (if it includes the voice of females) accept rape when the persons being raped dont accept it?

7sm

 

[arnisador]

Ah, now we're judging whole cultures...dangerous territory!

 

[Tgace]

At the bottom of it all you have to stand up for what you believe in and **** all the philosophical meandering. The last stop on the line of relativism is impotence and irrelativeness.

 

[Makalakumu]

Try raping the other person and see if they think its morally wrong?

:idunno:

It doesn't work that way. You have to step out of the bounds of our culture and imagine being raised in a culture where rape is the norm and male dominance of women is accepted. In this culture, if I were to rape someone, there would be nothing wrong with it.

 

[Tgace]

You HAVE to do no such thing...in the land of relativism forcing my morality on others is no more "wrong" than anything else.

 

[Makalakumu]

The last stop on the line of relativism is impotence and irrelativeness.

The fighting and strife of moral absolutism never ends, because one can never make everyone believe exactly the same thing...

 

[Makalakumu]

Exactly my point. We say other cultures accept it. My question is what defines culture? The person being raped certainly doesn't accept it, so are they just not a voice of the culture or what? Rape is only rape if one doesn't accept it. How can a culture (if it includes the voice of females) accept rape when the persons being raped dont accept it?

7sm

For a woman living in a male dominated culture where rape is the normal way of forcing submission, rape would be the norm.

This female, when taken out of her home culture, may expect to be raped by any man and she could learn a different set of cultural norms that says that rape is wrong. And as long as she lived in that culture, rape would be wrong.

If she ever moved back to her home culture and was raped, there would be absolutely no recourse for her new beliefs on right and wrong. Essentially, no one would think that what was done to her was wrong.

 

[arnisador]

At the bottom of it all you have to stand up for what you believe in and **** all the philosophical meandering. The last stop on the line of relativism is impotence and irrelativeness.

I agree. It's interesting to think about, but the bottom line is that there are things I believe are clearly wrong even if I can't articulate argumenst for those beliefs from first principles. One must stand for something.

But, I think this thread is meant to take a more academic track, no? The Study is now a subforum of www.philosophyforums.com.

 

[Tgace]

The fighting and strife of moral absolutism never ends, because one can never make everyone believe exactly the same thing...

At least they are acting to right something they believe is wrong. They are taking a stand where the relativist has the luxury of philosophically camoflaugeing their cowardice and inability to take a stand on anything.

 

[arnisador]

At least they are acting to right something they believe is wrong. They are taking a stand where the relativist has the luxury of philosophically camoflaugeing their cowardice and inability to take a stand on anything.

They think respecting others' cultures is important, and are taking a stand on that. I think you're being unduly harsh.

 

[Ray]

You HAVE to do no such thing...in the land of relativism forcing my morality on others is no more "wrong" than anything else.

Although I don't live in the land of relativism, I absolutely love this quote.

In an earlier post, someone mentioned tolerance. I have lived in the land of manufacturing most of my life; and in the land of manufacturing tolerance is a predefined allowable deviation from the desired {usually a measurement}. If something is "outside" of tolerance, you either throw it away or change it to be within tolerance. I wonder if "changing something to be within tolerance" could be likened to "rehabilitation?"

 

[Makalakumu]

At least they are acting to right something they believe is wrong. They are taking a stand where the relativist has the luxury of philosophically camoflaugeing their cowardice and inability to take a stand on anything.

I think there is a middle ground. I think that contextualism is very important. Knowing and acknowledging the details of the situation instead of just generalizing it as "evil" will help one make a wiser decision. We must recognize peoples differences and attempt to be tolerant, however, we need to try and find some common ground.

 

[Tgace]

They think respecting others' cultures is important, and are taking a stand on that. I think you're being unduly harsh.

Thats your relative opinion.....respecting another culture is vastly different from tolerating genocide, rape, murder, etc.