Moral Relativism Creates Rascism
Moral Relativism posits that there is no objective right or wrong. That societies and individuals can all have their own moral code. This seems all well and good, but there are considerable problems. I am going to borrow some examples from Katherin A. Rogers, a philosophy professor I had last spring. One, I think it is safe to say that most people we would consider to be rational human beings think it is wrong to tourture small children for fun. We would also agree that Jeffrery Dahmer was a wacko, and that his actions were wrong. Under a moral relativist state, not only would tourturing small children for fun be perfectly acceptable, but Jeffrey Dahmer would walk free, because his actions would also be unpunished.
Ignoring that very undersirable outcome, as many moral relativists do, let me turn to the realm of humanity itself. Not being a moral relativist, I have some things I believe about humanity across the board. Thomas Jefferson summed them up pretty well in the Declaration of Independence:
Since I believe that the rights above are inalienable, therefore, all human beings must have them, ergo, all human beings should be held to the same moral standard. A moral relativist believes that since all cultural traditions and actions are perfectly valid, that humans cannot be held to the same moral standards. This reinforces existing rascism because one is obviously going to think that their system is the best, and many cultural lines are also race lines.
I think that a crack dealer in a bad inner-city neighborhood can be good if given the oppurtunity and motivation. The moral relativist would argue that there is nothing wrong with his behavior.
Ignoring that very undersirable outcome, as many moral relativists do, let me turn to the realm of humanity itself. Not being a moral relativist, I have some things I believe about humanity across the board. Thomas Jefferson summed them up pretty well in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.A moral relativist, it seems, would not hold these truths to be self-evident. To them, humanity has no intrinsic value, which I certainly believe it does. I find that many liberals wax moral relativist, holding that one belief as valid as another (when you challenge them with Hitler or Dahmer, they stammer for a while and then either cry or their head implodes). This is just absurd. Sure, I may be a Westerner through and through, but I believe that since people are equal, they can and should be held to a universal code of morals, regardless of their origin or culture.
Since I believe that the rights above are inalienable, therefore, all human beings must have them, ergo, all human beings should be held to the same moral standard. A moral relativist believes that since all cultural traditions and actions are perfectly valid, that humans cannot be held to the same moral standards. This reinforces existing rascism because one is obviously going to think that their system is the best, and many cultural lines are also race lines.
I think that a crack dealer in a bad inner-city neighborhood can be good if given the oppurtunity and motivation. The moral relativist would argue that there is nothing wrong with his behavior.
| Permalink | 
