Discussion
Seven: Moral Relativism AND Moral Universalism
“Which
side do you think is right?
Are
you an objectivist or a relativist?
Which side do you think has the most virtues?
Does the other side have any intolerable faults?”
Which side do you think has the most virtues?
Does the other side have any intolerable faults?”
An ongoing theme and
argument, truth. Objective or Subjective? Moral, religious,
political, ontological? Truth...
I was having this conversation with a friend recently, him supporting supposed-objectivism as a perspective. I did not support him, but neither did I support a relativistic perspective entirely. I don't think squeaky-wheel extremes really can grasp at truth with any worthwhile claim but rhetoric and noise, drowning others out and such. My point with my friend was merely that there is no objective or subjective thinking then, but thinking if anything at all. The whole objectivity thing is a myth - we are all and always subjective and biased, even in how we present facts as reasons and supports for moral arguments, which they cannot ever be.
Both sides are right, and wrong.
In judging the morality or worth of a thing, we must look to the act, the intention, and the circumstance. not one of these overrides the others, so favoring mysterious circumstances as a relativist, or favoring action alone as a universalist, does violence to the multi-faceted reality of the whole. Neither strict view is at all tolerable. Both are the same - my way for you and all, or nothing. Both are equally wrong.
How can we judge at all, then? I believe man is to judge himself and all, not toward a culpability of error, sin, or depravation, but toward our being good, noble, useful - in short, our happiness. Seeing things as what they are, to the degree that they are, is all we can ACTIVELY do. Here, the Moral Relativist is right to accept differences in cultural norm, and to be tolerant WITHOUT requiring or demanding tolerance of others. Here the Moral Universalist is correct in appreciating the similarity and gradiant degree of one-ness, good, and health manifest and manifesting in all things, peoples, and tribes the same.
Our similarities amidst personal and tribal incongruities are to be celebrated and honored, not imposed. Our differences should be known as the distinct and mysterious qualities beyond us, yet without disdain for that finiteness we recognize amongst our own distinct cultures and customs.
Our pulse and breath, individually and together, betray a hope in BEING. Here is from where we rightly judge, not by our divisions, but in one human family of many tribes, cultures, histories, and languages.
I was having this conversation with a friend recently, him supporting supposed-objectivism as a perspective. I did not support him, but neither did I support a relativistic perspective entirely. I don't think squeaky-wheel extremes really can grasp at truth with any worthwhile claim but rhetoric and noise, drowning others out and such. My point with my friend was merely that there is no objective or subjective thinking then, but thinking if anything at all. The whole objectivity thing is a myth - we are all and always subjective and biased, even in how we present facts as reasons and supports for moral arguments, which they cannot ever be.
Both sides are right, and wrong.
In judging the morality or worth of a thing, we must look to the act, the intention, and the circumstance. not one of these overrides the others, so favoring mysterious circumstances as a relativist, or favoring action alone as a universalist, does violence to the multi-faceted reality of the whole. Neither strict view is at all tolerable. Both are the same - my way for you and all, or nothing. Both are equally wrong.
How can we judge at all, then? I believe man is to judge himself and all, not toward a culpability of error, sin, or depravation, but toward our being good, noble, useful - in short, our happiness. Seeing things as what they are, to the degree that they are, is all we can ACTIVELY do. Here, the Moral Relativist is right to accept differences in cultural norm, and to be tolerant WITHOUT requiring or demanding tolerance of others. Here the Moral Universalist is correct in appreciating the similarity and gradiant degree of one-ness, good, and health manifest and manifesting in all things, peoples, and tribes the same.
Our similarities amidst personal and tribal incongruities are to be celebrated and honored, not imposed. Our differences should be known as the distinct and mysterious qualities beyond us, yet without disdain for that finiteness we recognize amongst our own distinct cultures and customs.
Our pulse and breath, individually and together, betray a hope in BEING. Here is from where we rightly judge, not by our divisions, but in one human family of many tribes, cultures, histories, and languages.
-xv, Oct 2013
