Pedro Pontes García (Spain), United World College Red Cross Nordic, Norway
Anja Azdejković, The Fourth Grammar School, Belgrade, Serbia
Ece Göksu, İzmir Özel Amerikan Koleji, Turkey
Pedro Pontes García (Spain), United World College Red Cross Nordic, Norway
“In argument about moral problems, relativism is the first refuge of the scoundrel.”
Roger Scruton: Modern Philosophy, London: Sinclair-Stevenson (1994), p.32.
The above quote presents a strong claim that moral relativism is unacceptable; Scruton goes to the extent of calling moral relativists “scoundrel”. Moral relativism is a view on morality characterised by the absence of universal moral values that apply to all humans. If Scruton is right, then moral relativism belongs to the non-functional members of an overall functioning society (hence “scoundrel”), where a certain level of moral universality is desirable. This essay thus aims to explore the question of whether universal moral values are a necessary condition of a functioning society.
In order to explore moral relativism, it is useful to discuss a more practical case. Thus, a thought experiment discussed by philosopher Immanuel Kant shall be presented. In it, a woman is in the street after spending the evening at a friend’s, and is suddenly met by a murderer, who politely asks whether the woman’s friend is at home. Aware of the intentions of the murderer, the woman faces a moral choice: should she tell the truth, as is universally claimed to be moral, or should she protect her friend, who will most likely be murdered otherwise, and therefore ignore universal moral values, making a decision relative to a specific situation? The choice might seem to be clear: obviously, the woman should protect her friend and try to avoid the murder from taking place. Although for Roger Scruton, perhaps the woman, by ignoring universal duties towards the truth, begins to consider deception a necessity in other situations, given that her perception of necessity is relative. Let us evaluate the argumentation and implications behind this course of action through the lens of Kantian morals.
Kant argued for the ‘categorical imperative’, a duty towards individual action that is not only relatively moral, but also universally moral. His most famous formulation of the categorical imperative is presented in his Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals: one must act as though the maxim behind their action could be elevated to a universal rule. This is clearly applicable to the woman’s situation: if she lies, she is considering that lying could become a universal rule. This means that a ‘protective’ lie like that one becoming acceptable could easily lead to more questionable lies, such as hiding an affair from a significant other in order to protect them from psychological suffering. This could lead to a path where nobody would expect the truth from anyone, thus invalidating the whole notion of truth. This implies that society could not function with such a relative interpretation of morals.
Nonetheless, moral relativism seems to be a very attractive concept in our modern, liquid societies. As humanity evolves into a global society where local cultures and identities become diluted, moral values that had endured centuries have now become obsolete, making way for a permanent shift in the perception of morals all around the world. LGBTQ+ issues, for example, were considered immoral less than fifty years ago, and if we lived in a world with universal, immutable moral values, many would still live under the oppression of the heteronormative society. It seems as though Kantian morals are grounded in some essential claims that we may reject; it is in fact true that Kant’s framework necessitates the existence of God as the only being capable of making universal moral choices. And religion has indeed historically been one of the greatest sources of universal morals, some of which, as evidenced above, we now reject.
However, there are ways to argue for the necessity of universal morals in society that do not emerge from other universal truths. Contractualist philosopher Thomas Hobbes presents an argument for relative morals being inherently incompatible with peaceful societies. He explains his claim in the Leviathan,setting the example of a few farmers each of whom has a small plot of land on a hill full of trees. The trees hold the ground steady; without their roots, the soil would collapse, making the land infertile; but they also prevent the farmers from cultivating the land. From a moral relativist perspective, each of the farmers can deem most beneficial to cut down the trees on their plot of land, and given that the rest of the farmers do not do the same, the soil will hold, protected by the rest of the trees. However, if they all commit to this course of action, which is relatively beneficial for each of them, and thus relatively moral, all the trees will be cut down and all the farmers will starve. For Hobbes, there is a necessity of an external authority that imposes that it is morally preferable for each of them to have less food compared to how much they would get if they could benefit from their entire plot of land, instead of just a small piece. In this way, we arrive at the conclusion that universal morals are necessary for their small society to function.
But Hobbes’ argument is questionable. I am not convinced that the farmers, considering the relative short-term benefit of cultivating the whole land, would completely disregard the long-term absolute dangers. If they come together to find a common solution, though, it could be claimed that they are essentially agreeing upon the universal moral value of cooperation over relative individual benefit. But what prevents them from noticing the risks and being individually careful with the amount of land they farm?
I am left unconvinced by Hobbes’ argument, because it ultimately presumes that humans are selfish, and that relative choices are always egoistic choices. Going further, I believe that a certain level of relativism regarding morality is not only to be expected but also desired. To illustrate this claim, George Orwell proposes in 1984 a society where moral values on every single thing are imposed externally; a society not radically different from historic authoritarian regimes. This type of society is one where individuals are stripped away from their capacity of making individual moral judgements, because they are indoctrinated on some set values from birth. Humanity thus is as functional and effective as it can possibly be, since there are never any questions about morality or purpose, and in becoming so it loses its humanity. Scruton might be right that moral relativism is not to be fully embraced, because it could lead to a disconnected and failed society, but leaving no room for relative views, that relate to individuals rather than common goals, is clearly limiting, and, if taken to the extreme, ultimately cripples humanity.
But a complete lack of universal morals is also detrimental to society. A society requires understanding between individuals, and a common ground for understanding founded on some universal principles is needed. An example of this is hate speech; a moral relativist might claim that since nothing is absolutely right or wrong then discriminatory content in social media must be permitted. But doing so undermines the voice of those discriminated against, and eliminates them from the common ground of understanding. A society like this is a failed one, because the lack of a universal moral language will cause those minorities to be left out. A counterargument to this that I consider necessary to address is whether such a common ground would actually leave the producers of hate speech out of the social discourse, therefore causing the same effect as the lack of the common ground. But as I view it, providing some common universal moral language actually allows the producers of hate speech to communicate their ideas in a way that does not cause harm.
In conclusion, I consider universal moral values to be essential for a functioning society, with the caveats that we need to be able to let society decide upon those universal morals, adapt them as times change, and allow for a certain degree of relativism in making moral judgments, as long as they do not hurt others.
Anja Azdejković, The Fourth Grammar School, Belgrade, Serbia
“In argument about moral problems, relativism is the first refuge of the scoundrel.”
Roger Scruton: Modern Philosophy, London: Sinclair-Stevenson (1994), p.32.
In pursuit of the preservation of truths and rules tangible to it, mankind has historically relied upon dogmatic religions and righteous values to build its civilizations. Those exact truths built one upon another interchangeably, for thousands of years, creating what we knew as objective morality. It is of concern for those like Sir Roger Scruton, who wish to conserve what’s left of traditional, purposeful morale, that our modern civilization seems to be heading into the deep hole of cowardly relativism. Opposing a scoundrel, a one with a disintegrating sense of objectivity and purpose, with the repercussions of objective morality, will inevitably cause him to seek safety. Even if that safety is found in the destruction of principles of our society.
As we move further away from objectivity and undertake the ideas of a post-modernistic nihilistic world, we make of ourselves those who are either comfortably and blissfully good, thus static, or those who hide their monstrousness behind the idea of relativism. When Sir Scruton compares relativism to a refuge, it insinuates that a man who behaves badly is afraid of how morality would cause him to face his flaws, and punish him. Relativism could thus be seen as a form of escapism from our own insufficiency.
In such a sense, if we recognize that morality causes those who don’t match it to suffer, we see that it’s not really the morality that the scoundrel fears, but what it would inflict on him. Considering the scoundrel as someone who only obeys the ideas of uncertainty and relativism, his stands would likely transfer to how profoundly he would look onto his own suffering. In the words of Friedrich Nietzsche, “The meaninglessness of suffering, not suffering itself, was the curse that lay over mankind so far.”, we might find where that fear comes from. A dishonest man repudiates suffering by merging good and bad into one because he is inept from seeing the fundamentality of deed. In trying to remove the idea of objective morality, we also remove the idea of punishment and sorrow, thus getting rid of any chance to make meaning of our malicious dishonest deeds. Whilst diminishing the ideas of right and wrong, we rob ourselves of redemption, we rob ourselves of growth.
A scoundrel might thus call upon the insignificance of our existence in the grandiosity of the universe, upon how anything good or bad we do will remain as such not causing any change. Any act of a man, would then just as the action of an ant, be seen as almost non-existing compared to this cold spinning rock that carries us in what seems to be infinite boundless space. But such states of mind come to be almost malignant when we aspire to find why morality was something that came to existence in the first place. It is not to be seen as a conscious act that one feels the inner serenity when doing good and a sense of emptiness when doing bad. Our intuitive and unconscious need for rightness will bring up the sentiment which tells us the only way to escape objective morality is by being untruthful to ourselves.
In a world filled with chaos that seems to harmonize itself with rules and principles which were obvious to us since ancient times, the undoing of them would be seen as a way one man could act from fear, from dishonesty and from hedonistic urges. The scoundrel who wants to subject the nature of morality to relativity and subjectivity is the one who seeks detachment from our true selves and our purpose. Thus giving existence a manmade feel, putting himself as the ultimate creator and letting the ego overtake.
Ece Göksu, İzmir Özel Amerikan Koleji, Turkey
“In argument about moral problems, relativism is the first refuge of the scoundrel.”
Roger Scruton: Modern Philosophy, London: Sinclair-Stevenson (1994), p.32.
The Question Of Relativism
In the last two centuries, individualism grew incredibly stronger compared to the past when people had to live collectively to survive. Most people no longer felt obligated to fulfill society’s, their families’, or God’s expectations for them. Thus, the concept of individual rights started to shine out instead. Also, these fundamental rights were guaranteed by the formal, widely accepted set of rules: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration granting everyone personal rights also preserves people’s freedom of speech which provides a safe discussion medium for all people to express their opinions around the world freely without being pressured or restricted. However, manipulating, misusing, and diverting this right from its true purpose leads to misdirection and agitation of the masses, and causes major global problems. Therefore, questionings such as can knowledge be harmful, does freedom of speech have limits, or is there a common ground regarding moral problems become constant debate topics in our current political and cultural mediums.
The prominence of human rights covers a very small period compared to the history of human civilization. We are able to live our lives today as a result of the efforts of humanism and peace, which came to the fore, especially after the destruction and pain caused by World War II. However, the situation did not progress like this until the early mid-1900s. It is not far away that the nationalist movements that emerged as a result of the French Revolution became radicalized and societies turned into a race to establish racial superiority over each other, that these ideological fallacies were included as “scientific knowledge” in anthropology books, and that mass manipulation in line with these ideologies led to ethnic cleansings and even genocide. Nazism, fascism, etc., which we condemn today and consider as a crime against humanity were the accepted norms of the time. Only after facing such disasters did we realize how prone to misdirection and how harmful some opinions can be, and how the lack of common ground for people from different socioeconomic backgrounds contribute to that. The so-called relativism and diversity of opinions can lead to major issues as witnessed in history; therefore, limitation of some radical ideas is reasonable and justified in order to prevent disasters en-masse. This necessitates the forming of some common moral values which are inclusive of everyone from different cultural, religious, political backgrounds. Establishing a safe common ground for everybody should be one of the main concerns of establishments to maintain their continuity since this would prevent certain people from spreading misdirecting knowledge in line with their harmful political agendas and doing it under the name of relativism. It means that inhibiting the radicalization of thought when necessary is not for the detriment but the benefit of the society, as it protects the social order and looks after the good of the majority, and also protects the rights of the minorities. This approach can also be seen as an extension of Rousseau’s Social Contract theory, which puts forward the idea that rules and duty descriptions should be arranged by consensus between the rulers and the ruled in order to maintain order in a community.
We know how the manipulation of information caused serious problems in the past. So how does this problem arise today? Even people who make statements that agitate the society, target certain segments, and cause them to be excluded from the social system may try to justify their harmful behavior under the name of freedom of thought or relativism. Especially today, the rise of right-wing modern populism is attributed to this phenomenon by researchers. The way politicians who claim to represent “real people” exclude, discriminate and marginalize the intellectual, educated, dissident, or otherwise different segments of the society in line with their political agendas, thus hindering collective scientific progress and free thought, again under the name of freedom of thought forms a paradox. This needs to be stopped before the social structure deteriorates, segments become polarized and these harmful ideas spread and become radicalized. Detecting these harmful discourses along the way before they start causing major problems, indicating the logical fallacies and detrimental ideas behind them, and educating the society about these issues would be the first step to get ahead of the “scoundrels” according to Scruton’s definition from seeking refuge behind relativism and their crooked perception of freedom as Scruton stresses. Therefore, the formation of common sense and common inclusive moral values through education and various methods becomes an obligation. Although this situation seems to partially hinder the freedom of thought in the short term, it is necessary for the long run to preserve the free thought atmosphere and to keep the society together.
So what can be done in a social sense besides political arrangements to protect individuals from this situation? Establishing an inclusive common language instead of the discriminatory relative language prevents the radicalization of existing extremist ideas. With the rise of humanism after World War II, religiously, culturally and racially integrative expressions entered our common discourse and were useful, but they can be insufficient today. Although humanism is integrative, it is a philosophical way of thinking that ultimately puts people at its center. With the development of our transportation networks and the increasing interdependence of all beings in Earth’s ecosystems, we need an integrative language that includes non-human beings such as nature and animals. We can’t live in our relative, small, independent worlds anymore as we become more and more connected to each other every day. As the world has become a global village, even local and small-scale developments can create shocks around the world. Global warming and increasing natural disasters make it inevitable for us to add environmentalism to our humanist axis and language. We need to create a common ground for moral discussions, and moral problems are not only social ones anymore but also environmental issues regarding the future of our planet. The understanding that people act according to their personal interests, put forward by Thomas Hobbes, necessarily disappears as the dependence of individuals on each other and their environment increases. We can easily say that the era of personal interest is over and we have evolved into the era of common interest. Restraining certain, often radical, thoughts also becomes compulsory to ensure inclusiveness and continuity of life on earth.
To sum up, relativism can be used to deflect freedom of speech from its true meaning by malicious people. Identifying these people and revealing their intentions becomes imperative for the preservation of social order and peace in the modern world where personal interest evolves into common interest. Only in this way can the manipulation of information and its use for self-interest harmful to society can be prevented.
bspee 