Why I'm a Moral Relativist

   Moral relativism, like atheism and libertarianism, is an excellent, reasoned system, but not so good as to be able to overcome the emotional arguments and myths against it. I will "confess," bare my soul, to being a moral relativist, but I hope that by explaining some of the stereotypes of it, I can also explain myself and hopefully dispel some of the bad things hindering acceptance of moral relativism in our society.
   The core difference between moral relativism and moral absolutism is whether your moral values are primarily determined internally or externally. It is not enough to simply call yourself a moral relativist as an excuse for setting up your own rules; you must also extend that freedom of choice to others. The moral absolutist believes that there is an absolute, universal set of values, typically decreed by their god or some other authority figure. However, what makes a moral "absolute" is not that you think it's true and proper for yourself, but that you believe others should adhere to it also. Thus, moral absolutism entails a necessary degree of denial to others (in theory or in practice) the adoption of differing values. Moral relativism is the recognition that since there are no truly universal value sets, it should be left to each person to adopt their own values without coercion from the church, government, community, or other institutions of authority.
   Presented here are some myths about moral relativism, and my response:

Myth: Moral relativism lets you do anything you want.
Moral relativism (which I will refer to as MR in my responses henceforth) is not a license to do whatever you please. Nor does it mean that those who practice it are without moral values (amoral). At its heart, MR is simply allowing others the freedom to determine their own set of priorities and values. There are around 6 billion humans on this planet, and "one size fits all" does not apply to all or even most humans. Those of us who are MRs are still constrained in our behaviors and actions by an internal set of values. The difference is that those values are obtained by experience, reasoning and contemplation, not merely by someone else's standards.

Myth: Moral relativism dictates that you must accept any kind of behavior in the name of "tolerance."
Just because you allow others to determine their values for themselves does not mean you give up your right to object. If someone holds a belief that you find to be wrong by your definition, you may still emplore or reason with them. With luck you may even convince them of their wrongness. MR just means you don't use coercion or mandate to force others to accept your beliefs.
MR also does not mean that individuals or society give up their right to object to an action they feel to be wrong. To be self-consistent, moral relativism must impose two conditions on your actions. First, you can not violate your own values, lest they become worthless (and yourself branded a hypocrite). Second, your actions can not deprive others of their physical or financial states (essentially, their health or property), or their freedoms. In short, be true to yourself, follow the Golden Rule, and live & let live. Murder and theft are actions which harm and deprive others of their life, freedoms, and/or possessions. Not tolerating such actions is being consistent in MR.

Myth: But if I'm a MR, can't I just change my values on a whim to fit the moment?
If you violate the rules that you have set for yourself, then you haven't really set them, have you? And in that case you're not really following any set of morals, which would mean you were merely amoral. Again, amoral and morally relativistic are different terms. There is no functional difference between having a moral that you break, and not having that moral at all.

Myth: Moral relativism runs into trouble with child rearing. You need to instill values into your children, but doesn't that disqualify you from being a relativist?
No. To instill values into your child is not the same as forcing your values upon another. In the former case you are guiding the process of your child's value formation by supplying him/her with a base set of values, which will undoubtedly grow and evolve into their own personal set and may or may not ultimately resemble your own. Children look to their elders for guidance, and providing that guidance is necessary for the continuation of any form of civilization. Of course it is hoped that you also provide reasonings behind your values; simply teaching "this is right, that is wrong" is a poor way to pass on your morals.
When you force your values upon another you are attempting to overwrite or supersede their pre-existing set of values against their will. Both sides think they're right, but one side seeks to remove the freedom of choice from the other.

Myth: Moral relativists are afloat on the sea of morality without a compass or rudder, uncertain and directionless.
It may appear that way. With absolute or objective morality you have (in theory) a fleet of ships all moving together in a common direction, faithful of their destination even if it's still over the horizon. Some may not be (sea-)worthy enough to make it, but that's their own failure, not because the destination is unreachable.
With MRs you have ships going everywhere. Sometimes two ships will collide, and one or both will sink if they're not seaworthy. Sometimes a ship will end up back where it started, and will have to start the journey over. But it knows where it's been, and can set out in a new direction. And sometimes, one of those meandering ships will find a new, better way totally unseen by the absolutist fleet, a way which may not be right for everyone, but which is right for the individual vessel. A galleon may run aground in a shallow river; and a rowboat could hardly weather a storm in the open sea. Each must find their own path, and recognize that that same path may not be right for everyone else, even if it's ideal for them.

Myth: If people are allowed to choose whatever set of values they want, why can't I decide that stealing is right? What's to prevent anarchy?
   In short, other people. A big part of being true to yourself is being responsible for your actions. Your actions affect yourself and others, and their reactions affect you. Anarchy (in the sense of lawless chaos) is a state where no one takes responsibility for their actions or respects the freedoms, property or integrity of others. This is not a part of MR.
   Again, being a moral relativist doesn't just mean making your own value judgements, but allowing others to do so also. If you don't allow others to set their own values, you are being an absolutist, by definition.
   When you do harm to others--financial, physical, or legal--you remove from them some degree of their freedom. You remove from them some choice as to how to live their life. The person who gets beaten for wandering into the wrong part of town, the black forced to sit at the back of the bus, the person who suffers financial loss from having something stolen--all these people now have fewer choices open to them now than before. And all this goes back to the question of whether you let people lead their own life, or make decisions for them.

Myth: People are inherently bad and need an objective, absolute moral code to separate right from wrong.
Wrong! :-) Any civilization which is "inherently bad" will at best never progress and at worst will wipe itself out. I believe humans tend to the side of good, because we have been evolutionarily selected to. Bad behavior brings bad consequences and is thus anti-survival. Good behavior, as we have come to define it, is usually that which further ensures the well-being (in some manner) of the species. Right and wrong are determined on a case-by-case basis everyday by individuals, without need of or reference to external moral codes. There are just too many gray areas for any moral code to cover. One person can label a situation absolutely right, another can call it absolutely wrong, and they can both give reasonable defenses why. Objective values aren't objective if you allow people to hold other values. (I present medicinal marijuana as an example to the reader. All illegal drugs are bad, isn't that the wisdom the govt. wants us to accept?)

Myth: You can't punish "wrong" behavior under moral relativism because there is no objective definition of wrong.
Wrong does not need an objective definition to be punishable. The law is full of arbitrary yet punishable "wrongs." What behaviors are punishable is determined by those who write the laws. They are not bound by any objective moral code, though. They are influenced by personal values and bias, English common law tradition, other laws, and plain old politics.

Myth: We can arrive at a set of absolute, objective morals by observing the values of society and/or the dominant religion(s), or even using your pro- or anti-survival criteria above.
   In many of my answers above you may have been wondering, "Can't we get an objective set by consensus? If most people feel a certain way, shouldn't that be the way things are?" We can't do this, for several reasons.
   First, society is not a "tyranny of the majority." The rights and beliefs of the minority must be respected because we are all members of some minority.
   Second, the point you determine as being a consensus is arbitrary. Do you reach a consensus at a simple majority? If so then you have a sizable minority which disagrees with you, leaving your consensus hardly workable. Do you reach a consensus at 99%? If so then you'll seldom reach a consensus on any issue.
   Third, society's values change over time. Slavery and sacrificing your first-born are not acceptable practices today. The problem with having an objective or absolute set of values is that they are by definition rigid, and highly resistant to change. Also, different societies have different values as a whole.
   Fourth, living under an absolute code removes from the individual their ability to judge a situation for themselves, and to question right from wrong. I suppose for some it's a fuzzy kind of comfort, having your life ordered and decisions made. Nearly all of us though, whether we realize it or not, still prefer making our decisions using our own reasoning.
   And last but not least, living under an absolute code constrains your actions by removing from you certain freedoms of choice, leaving you open to fewer possibilities. By the same token it is a denial of your individual judgment, of personal growth, and of your ability to question in circumstances.

Moral absolutism is a valid choice for some, if you are willing to give up a bit of your freedom and judgment. But for me it is a rigid, arbitrary system requiring one to have faith in others' judgments. Although I consider myself an optimist, I'm afraid that's a faith I just don't have. But I do have faith in my fellow man, faith enough to believe that we are all better left to our own moral devices.

	This page is hosted by Get your own Free Home Page!
	Email me, Andrew Trapp, at dreamer-71@yahoo.com.