The Military Professional and Respect for the Moral Law

1
The Military Professional and Respect for the
Moral Law

• Wrestling with Relativism
• or, When in Rome . . .

2
Some Problems from Last Week

• CDR Tom Grassi Historical contexts shift,
  there is sometimes moral progress (e.g., on
  race and gender) that pose problems in new ways
• Ficarrotta versus Edney/Chiles moral values
  seem to vary among professions, different moral
  standard for the military officer and the average
  citizen?

3
When in Rome. . .Here are some odd facts

• Ancient Callatians ate the bodies of their dead
  fathers (Herodotus)
• Ancient Callatians were horrified that the Greeks
  cremated their dead (vice versa)
• Eskimos (Inuit?) practiced infanticide and
  euthanasia (Rachels)

4
What is the Point?

• Whats right is what each person (or society)
  says is right
• Right and wrong are a matter of opinion
• There are no moral absolutes
• I do my thing, you do yours. . .
• When in Rome (or Saudi Arabia, or wherever), do
  as the Romans (or Saudis, or whomever) do!

5
The Official Response

• USNA official policy Moral Relativism is
  Wrong!! ?
• Philosophers (like Porter and Rachels) have great
  fun debunking relativism
• If everyone is so convinced this view is wrong,
  then
• 1) why do we have to spend time on it?
• 2) maybe there is something right, or appealing
  about it!

6
Plan of Attack

• Examine different variations of relativism
• Examine the appeal of each form to the
  contemporary public
• Define and distinguish descriptive from
  normative theories
• Examine and analyze the argument for normative
  relativism
• Examine some flaws and problems in this theory

7
Descriptive Relativism

• Different societies have different moral codes
• Naval Officers traveling the globe are going to
  encounter some surprising practices
• Likewise, individuals differ in their moral
  beliefs (this is why we argue so much!)
• These are summary statements of fact (that is,
  these general observations seem to be beyond
  reasonable doubt)

8
Definition I

• Descriptive relativism tastes, preferences,
  even moral values, DIFFER as a matter of fact
• -- from individual to individual (belief
  relativism)
• -- from society to society (cultural relativism)

9
Normative Relativism

• People tend to draw some interesting and
  surprising conclusions from the foregoing
  observations, such as
• There are NO objective standards of right or
  wrong these are a matter of history and
  geography (Porter)
• We ought to TOLERATE different moral beliefs and
  codes
• When in Rome, do as the Romans do

10
Definition II

• Normative Relativism is the theory that all of
  us ought to tolerate each others different
  perspectives on morality, because there are no
  absolute or objective standards of right and
  wrong
• People who believe this seem to feel that
  normative relativism is the logical outcome or
  deduction from descriptive relativism
• Facts about individual and cultural differences
  are thus said to establish norms or standards
  of obligation

11
Argument for Normative Relativism (Rachels)

• Different cultures have different moral codes
• People (and societies) differ in their opinions
  over which moral values or moral codes are
  correct
• Right and wrong seem to be merely matters of
  opinion
• Therefore there are no objective moral standards
• And, in the absence of objective standards, we
  ought always to respect and tolerate moral
  differences

12
Analysis of the Argument

• Logical fallacies (circular, appeals to feelings,
  statistics, naturalistic fallacy)
• Premises are all sound, but many are irrelevant
  or beg the question
• The argument is not valid
• But the theory (either individual or cultural)
  may still be true!!
• Examine the consequences of accepting it

13
Consequences of Normative Relativism

• The theory seems right, to an extent, in warning
  us not to mistake our personal (or cultural)
  opinions and habits for absolute truth
• But the theory goes on to deny that there is, or
  could be, any such truth
• If so, why (for example) should I be tolerant if
  I believe in intolerance? (Porter and Rachels)
• What if what the Romans do (or the Nazis, or the
  Hutus) seems monstrous? How can I evaluate?
  Decide? Compare? Condemn?

14
Summary

• Relativism is a politically correct, but
  confused, family of beliefs designed to support
  toleration and fight bigotry
• Because of poor moral reasoning, this view in
  fact fails to accomplish these goals
• Ignores large areas of cross-cultural agreement
  on common moral principles (e.g., Golden Rule
  teachings)

15
Solution Moral Pluralism

• In physics, there are often rival theories,
  supported by evidence, and alternative methods
  for arriving at solutions to problems
• It never follows from this that all theories are
  equally true, or all methods are valid!!
• Perhaps there are also, in ethics, rival versions
  of what constitutes moral goodness, and multiple
  modes of valid reasoning about moral questions
• This will make our task difficult, but not
  impossible we dont need to believe in nonsense,
  or accept morally outrageous conduct