Relativism
and Morality
Relativism allows for an understanding of practices,
customs, and values amongst different societies. When considering the morals of others,
relativism can often be necessary to comes to terms with different views of
what is considered appropriate and unacceptable. However, in some instances relativism does
not, and cannot, provide an acceptable substitution for what should be
considered a set of unanimously respected principles. Lenn Goodman, a
philosophy professor at Vanderbilt University, having addressed the issue of
morality regarding genocide, famine and germ warfare, terrorism, hostages and
child warriors, slavery, polygamy, incest, rape, and clitoridectomy, challenges
relativism and asserts her position that such issues are unequivocally wrong. Though my perspective on some
of the issues Len Goodman argues allows for relativism, I am ultimately in
agreement that there are some practices that are universally wrong; these such
actions and customs, despite cultural and geographical differences, are and
will always be a crime against humanity.
Humanity
can be defined as the state of being a human, or humans collectively. While at
the same time, the word humanity can refer to ones “humaneness” or inherit
benevolence. Such definitions are powerful; it gives rise to the understanding
that the condition of being human is more than just biological. Despite diversities in culture, religion, and
customs, there is a uniform characteristic that links humans. That is, the
ability to feel and interpret emotions, thus illuminating ones sense of self
and connectedness to their fellow man.
Such a knowledge of ones’ own emotions and that of others lends an
understanding of the value, and thereby, right, to life.
Such right to life, and more complexly, the right to respect
of one’s humanity, is a primary philosophy that Goodman’s position urges. Such
rights include individuality, which she argues is what genocide, famine, and
germ warfare seeks to destroy. While
murder destroys a human subject, genocide targets a way of life; genocide is
worse than murder because of its intent. The political use of famine and germ
warfare targets humanity in the same way. Its purpose being power. Goodman’s
stance on such cases are agreeable, for genocide is wrong not just for the fact
that is seeks to murder individuals or masses, but for the hatred and disregard
for the rights of humanity and the denial of one’s individual and cultural
differences therein. With the use of famine and germ warfare those inflicted
are eradicated, and from my understanding, are a form of genocide in
themselves.
Violence as a means for power is not limited to genocide,
but is also apparent in terrorism, hostages, and the making of child warriors.
Goodman claims that terrorism comes from nihilism, the lack of morals and
values, and in the act of fighting for the morals and values it seeks, it
produces nihilism again by negating the rationale it attempts to conjure
(Goodman, 2010). This rings truth, for can we not witness that the act of
violence and intimidation is contradictory to the outcome it wishes to serve?
For instance, terrorist who engage in a suicide mission seek moral amnesty for
the sacrifice of their own life, yet the action itself eclipses the virtue such
terrorist finds in their sacrifice. Goodman
(2010) expresses this well, stating “Terrorist explode the values they claim to
fight for. Their victims’ blood blurs
and blots whatever ends were meant to justify the carnage” (p. 89). The act of
hostage taking is quite similar; persons are used for the leverage they offer,
therefore becoming an object of terrorism. Similarly, the use of child warriors
takes advantage of the easily manipulated essence of children, objectifying
them and then leaving them with psychological scarring they must endure for
their lifetime. Such acts are horrific in any society, their outcomes are
tragic. I feel they are a brutal disregard for human life and all that it
implies.
Perhaps even more torturous than death is slavery. Goodman’s stance on slavery is that it is the
ultimate exploitation of a person. Using
another as a tool for one’s self does not account for the victims’ interest,
needs, or wants, rather making them subordinate to the needs and wants of
others (Goodman, 2010). Indeed, slavery abuses and restricts one from their
sense of self and is wrong on many levels. Victims of slavery are required to
dismiss their ownership of self and to perform as a means to someone else’s
end. This is a fundamental denial of human rights. Extended from this thought
is my position on rape, which is much like that of Goodman’s, in that such an
act is the most degrading and unconditionally acceptable form of a manipulation
unto another. Goodman (2010) states “rape is exploitative, objectifying, and
yes, again violative. But what it violates is not just another’s body but that
other’s personhood, invested, deeply in one’s sexuality” (p. 92). The act is
demoralizing and humiliating. It violates the victims’ body, self-confidence, self-image
and ultimately ones’ psyche. “Rape
perverts and blasphemes against the trust and intimacy that give sexuality its
natural and transcendent meanings” (p. 92).
Blasphemy is a perfect word in this case as such an assault attacks a
victim so deeply that there is no greater form of disregard for another’s
sexuality and intimate sanctity. In this notion, the custom of clitoridectomy
is just as appalling in that it denies a woman of her physiological right to the
pleasures of intimacy (Goodman, 2010). The
lack of sexual pleasures makes it difficult for a woman to form an intimate
bond with her partner - bonds which are inherit in humanity.
While in these mentioned instances I can agree with
Goodman’s position on universal wrongness, I find relativism possible in the
remaining concerns she speaks of: polygamy and incest. According to Goodman, “Polygamy
transforms the nature of marriage. That is evident in the apologetics and
conditionals that so often speak of the need or fairness by a husband to his
wives. The telling subtext is that it is
the husband who makes moral choices here, the wives who are the recipients of
treatment, fair or unfair, invidious or even handed” (p. 91). In this case and
from the scope of my own culture, I can concur that polygamy is morally unjust,
yet considering this is a choice in most instances and often derives from
religious beliefs I regard it with a relativist perspective. Kurt Mosser (2010) describes that arguments
as seen through the lens of relativism can be understood in the context of
one’s society; what is virtuous as it relates to one’s culture may differ as it
relates to another. I feel that incest,
too, can be judged morally right or wrong through relativism assuming that
there is not a condition of rape involved, and family members are not directly
related. However, Goodman does not place cultural limits on such an issue. She argues that incest violates the developing
individual, affecting their hopes, aspirations, and their sense of self apart
from their family unit (Goodman, 2010).
Relativism in whole is challenged in the cases Goodman
takes position on. She describes no
cultural, geographical, or even philosophical boundary that gives way for
allowance of such practices. Rather,
Goodman speaks of a unanimous moral disregard that these practices empower and
that humanity must take an undivided stand against. These issues seek to find a common agreement
of what humanity considers morally unacceptable. Besides the few slight differences, I can
endorse the claim that Lenn Goodman makes in asserting that there are certain
practices that demoralize and violate the condition of humanity. Humanity
itself begs for appreciation of life and tolerance on individuality. Humanness seeks to express itself and to
create physical and emotional bonds with its kin; it creates friendships,
alliances, and communities that lends support and praises the diversities of
its people. Humanity as previously noted
can be used to define the benevolence, or kindness, of a person; therefore, in
its own nature it mandates a basic, unanimous, and unchallenged set of moral
requirements that pledge to uphold and respect its fragility and beauty.
Reference
Mosser,
K. (2010). Ethics & Social
Responsibility. San
Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment