SRS BSNS!!! Ethics: Relativism = Intellectual Laziness

[EscapePlan9]

I posted this in my member journal and my livejournal (detached9.livejournal.com - requires signing up and adding me as a friend to see most entries) but wanted more feedback, especially from Kent and BK, the other philosophy enthusiasts here.

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

There is nothing more intellectually lazy than relativism. The idea that right and wrong (i.e. morally permissible and morally forbidden acts) is relative according to your upbringing and cultural factors is flat out WRONG! It's easy to take the cop-out with "that's in your opinion, that's from your perspective, that's from your background and experiences". The extension of this relativistic cop-out is if a culture determines it morally acceptable to kill off male children, it's permissible, because that's just how that culture views things. If someone determines from their values it's okay to steal from businesses or people, then that is permissible too. There is no right and wrong under this "ethical foundation" (or lack thereof). How can one seriously say "it's only in your opinion that act is wrong - there is no objective right and wrong" in cases like this?

When you see some horrid acts of torture and think or say "That's WRONG!" you may not be realizing it but you are admitting there is something about certain acts that lead to them being morally permissible or forbidden; there is certain factors involved in acts that lead to them being right or wrong. And when you evaluate all of the factors involved, you arrive at the beginning of the foundations of normative ethics. You then continue to question and discuss which factors are most important when evaluating what is the best action in given situations. Eventually, after much dedication, you will arrive at a solid foundation for your ethical worldview.

Famous philosopher Thomas Nagel puts it best in his book The Last Word:
"... Subjectivism is not just an inconsequential intellectual flourish or badge of theoretical chic. It is used to deflect argument, or to belittle the pretensions of the arguments of others.... The actual result has been a growth in the already extreme intellectual laziness of contemporary culture and the collapse of serious argument throughout the lower reaches of the humanities and social sciences, together with a refusal to take seriously, as anything other than first-person avowals, the objective arguments of others.... It is there as a source of irritation in the background--though I don't seriously hope that work on the question of how reason is possible will make relativism any less fashionable." (Nagel, 6) -emphasis mine

Subjectivism at its core can be easily refuted by analyzing it's core statement: everything is up to the perspective of the individual, in the eye of the beholder, etc. That very statement is claiming it is objectively true, not just in someone's opinion, that everything is up to the perspective of the individual. It collapses right there.

And frankly, when you probe a subjectivist with enough questions, they will arrive at a point where they will be assuming the objectivity of reasoning to support their stances. To challenge the objectivity of reason you already are using the method of reasoning to bring up the objections. And to state reasons for why one should believe in ethical relativism, you once again are admitting that reasoning allows one to have an objective account of situations. Not something that's merely true for an individual, but something that is true for anyone who also sees everything out there.

Like Nagel said, many people will still find it fashionable to remain relativists no matter what. And this has hurt the intellectual development of everyone involved.

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

[MekosKing]

[EscapePlan9]

[EscapePlan9]

[EscapePlan9]

[MVPSPORTS]

[EscapePlan9]

[MekosKing]

[MekosKing]

[MVPSPORTS]

[MekosKing]

BEST...FAIL..PIC....EVER...

[emmasdad]

I'm kinda partial to:

[emmasdad]

I like this one too:

[AlexMR]

[Beavis68]