absoultely relative

[Terrance]

Dave Monroe wrote: 


>I don't think Pynchon "himself," those Pynchonian
>texts, even attempt an (ultimately impossible)
>absolute relativism, which is what I've bene reading
>you as suggesting.  I do think he, and, more so, they,
>make things very, very, difficult, very, very
>complicated (that "problematization,"
>"deconstruction," whatever thing), but ... 
 

1. The relativist asserts that there are incompatible moral
beliefs in  different cultures, and this diversity refutes
the existence  of  absolute ethical standards. 

2. Since every moral system is strictly relative to its
particular culture, none can be called objectively  better
or worse than another. 

And from this, it  follows is that it makes no sense at all
to
assert that, 

for  example, sodomizing young boys  or circumcising young
girls is "really" wrong
if  one judges from a position outside the society that
condones
the  practice. 

The problem with this position as I see it is: 

1. The relativist is here making two claims: 

A. a factual claim 

B. a philosophical claim

Now the factual claim is that societies do in 
fact exhibit very different moral systems

And the philosophical claim  is that, when faced with moral
diversity, no objective  criteria exist to judge between
them


The factual claim rests on very complex and ambiguous 
evidence. 

The simple presence of moral discrepancies, most commonly in
sexual  behavior, is not support,  because the apparent 
differences in codes of conduct  do not necessarily prove 
that fundamental moral beliefs differ.
 
Similar moral principles can take different behavioral forms
in  different social and environmental conditions. 

Moral diversity can  also be explained by differing opinions
about the facts of  what  constitutes happiness, obedience
to god(s) or social harmony.

The scale of moral variation has often been overemphasized. 


If one looks over the "major civilizations" in the Orient
and the West, one finds a striking degree
 of unanimity about ultimate moral beliefs,
though these sometimes  take local forms due to local social
differences. 



 Even if we accept the radical divergence of moral
systems,  it is equally possible that some criteria may
exist to assess them ethically.

 Most relativists quickly become absolutist 
when it comes to pet moral principles, like sodomizing boys
or circumcising girls. 

They  implicitly accept that criteria for judging different
moral  behavior do exist. Such relativists don't really
believe  that all  moral  beliefs are culture-specific, only
the mistaken ones.

A consistent  relativist, on the other hand, must say that
the statement "circumcising girls is  wrong" means
"circumcising girls is not part of my moral universe" and
completely  avoid the use of "wrong" outside his own ethical
domain. 

The  inability of virtually all relativists to do this is an
indication  that it's an untenable position. 

The objectivist who believes  there are fundamental 
moral principles that apply to all
humanity  has a similar problem. 

If a consistent objectivist says that
"sodomizing boys is  wrong" and means that "sodomizing boys
is absolutely and
objectively wrong for all humanity at all times,"  then he
must face the fact that
individuals who  break a moral rule do so because

either  don't believe it,

they  misunderstand its true import 

they disregard it

they suffer from some  mental aberration or social
conditioning. 

Can that individual be  "blamed" for breaking an objective
moral law?

This then requires us  to distinguish between two things: 

was an action right or wrong  by objective standards? 

can the violator be charged with a  moral breach? 

Even when we judge that an action is
morally wrong in fact, we must then start the slippery
business of  deciding if the  violator ought to have known
it was wrong. 

Recent comments here concerning Plato have caused me to
wonder if one of my silly persona
 ever studied him or if I just dreamed that I was
studying to  become a jesuit  to repress my oedipal drive. 

Plato's Republic should be read for what it is. 

Plato was in a very real sense and moral philosopher. 
technology, the mind, psychology, politics, these were all
moral considerations for Plato. He was in a more modern
sense, a "moral cognativist." His contribution was to
analyze why the mind fails to see objective moral standards
and thus  does wrong in ignorance. 

After Plato, perhaps the most powerful, non religious
alternative to simple absolutist or  relativist positions is
Kant's. 

But Kant requires us to  recognize the autonomy of the
will, capable of acting as a law to  itself independent 
of any object of volition. 

In a kingdom of ends, where no human is ever to be treated
as a means to some goal, but is  always an end in itself, we
are always to  act in such a way that the  maxim guiding our
choice of
action  can  simultaneously become  universal law applicable
to all
sentient beings. 

That immediately  puts an end, if one understands the
consequences of an autonomous  will, to sodomizing boys 
and circumcising   girls and a Hell of a lot of other things
as well.