Re: Morality and ethics: a provocative post

[glevy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, Justin Schwartz wrote:

>
> From the following it is evident that Jerry is an ethical relativist. Now
> the question is, why? What's your reason for this position?

As I suspected, it wouldn't take long for Justin to respond to my post.
The short answer to the question above, is that I am a materialist.  By
the way, what is the opposite of ethical relativism (you'll have to
excuse me as this is not my field of expertise)?  We are, first and
foremost, products of our own (capitalist) society.  Our morals and
ethical values are therefore shaped (but not crudely determined) by our
class, gender, nationality, religion and ideology.  Who can say what
determines whether a particular set of moral or ethical values is
superior to another set without reference to the particular social and
historical standpoint of that individual?  I would say that all such
values are relative to the social, historical, ideological, religious (or
atheist) positions of individuals and groups.  If one isn't morally and
ethically relativist, what (non-idealistic, non-religious) standard does
one apply to ethical questions?
>
> 1. The fact that different acts or policies may be indicated in different
> circumstances is no grounds for relativism--any moral positioon with a
> hope of success will allow that, e.g., violence may be permissible in some
> cases and not in others.

I'll accept the above position, but note that it seems to preclude an
"absolute" position on morality.  If you can convince me that some
non-relativist theory of morality can be able to be developed without
grounding that theory in religious or idealistic dogma, then I'll
certainly listen carefully to your position.  Are you perhaps thinking of
some humanist perspective?  I don't know that we can say what is
appropriate moral and ethical conduct for human beings.  From an
anthropological perspective, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that
moral and ethical values vary from culture to culture and historically.
Many human societies have had "taboos" of one kind or another (for
example, against parent-child sex or murder).  I believe that one can
also show that other cultures did not universally accept these taboos.
Doesn't the dominant class in any society determine the dominant set of
cultural, ethical and moral beliefs?
>
> 2. The mere fact that different groups differ on which ethical principles
> are correct doesn't show they're both right from their own point of view.
> Mere disagreement doesn't imply relativism.

I didn't say that all ethical principles are "correct" but that they
reflect -- and "are not crudely determined by" -- the social norms of a
particular culture/class/religion/nationality, etc.  Nazism had its own
set of moral and ethical values but that doesn't mean that those values
were "right." (although those values were consistent with the social norms,
class and ideology of fascism).

> 3. Jerry is pretty strong on upholding what he takes to be the worker's
> perspective. Why? What's so great about that perspective? Could it be that
> he thinks it's the correct one? Or is it just the one he likes?

Well ... depending on the period of time and place, there are many
examples of where workers act in a manner inconsistent with their class
interests.  So the "worker's perspective" is not always "so great"
concerning moral and ethical values.  Isn't that a question of "false
consciousness", though?  I'm not so sure I know what  the "correct" set
of moral and ethical values is for workers or what perspective I "like."
Do you?  I would add that an appropriate set of values and beliefs for
workers under capitalism may be very different from the moral and ethical
beliefs of workers under socialism.

> 4. Will Jerry allow that exploitation, racism, oppression, etc. are OK
for > the ruling class, at least from their point of view?

Sure. Although from the perspective of the ruling class, there is no
exploitation of workers by capitalists.  Sexism and oppression are
justified by the ruling class with a set of norms and an ideology that
says that the oppression of women and nationalities are  OK (based on moral
beliefs concerning male superiority and national chauvinism).
Consequently, their morals are not immoral but are rather THEIR MORALS.
 >
> I
don't want to be glib. I think there is a deep and hard problem about >
relativism. We've been through my views on this from the angle of the >
probability of historical progress, but I'm happy to go around again. >
However, I think that relativism is a pretty unattractive position--not >
just wrong, but unpalatable.

In other fields of inquiry, I, also, find relativism to be rather
shallow.  I chose this term because it was the one suggested by Justin in
his previous post.  In the context of morality and ethics, how is
relativism a) "unattractive" (standards of beauty are also social and
historically specific); b) wrong (according to the standard of which
class?); and "unpalatable" (a curious term)?

Jerry
>
>
>
>


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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