On Morality and Popular Opinion (a.k.a. Relativism)
*gasp!* Lhynard is actually posting again after no small number of months of hiatus. What happened to him. Well, returning from his adventures in Ecuador, he was quite tired and behind in work. He was also out of the habit and thoroughly exhausted of things to say. But now he finds himself in a writing-type mood and figured that enough was enough -- he should post again. So prepare once again to see yourpl friends lists full of new public posts from me....
I just returned from a weekend trip to New York city. (It was the first time I had ever been actually -- saw Broadway, Times Square, and the MoMA (Museum of Modern Art.) I had an interesting conversation about morality with an older man in the car. It was interesting mostly because he is a staunch relativist and I am a staunch absolutist. The topic has been argued many times before, and I am not so much posting to have it again as to point out a serious logical flaw in his logic and one that I have heard many times prior. (I am fully aware that pointing out this flaw does not necessarily strengthen the argument for absolute morality; it only weakens this particular argument for relativism.)
(Also let me insert on the minuscule chance that he A) uses LJ and B) can track me to this user name and reads this that he is certainly an intelligent man.)
He was arguing that there could not be an absolute morality because there is no agreement as to what that morality is. You will always find some place where it is culturally accepted to lie or steal or sleep with your sister or sacrifice your firstborn or circumcise your women or euthanize the weak or annihilate another race.
I find such "logic" ludicrous.
One cannot logically say anything about absolute morality based on the opinions of the absolute. He is tying to say that morality is defined by popular opinion. This is a possible explanation of where morality comes from, but it is not by any means the only logical conclusion to follow the fact that such differences in opinion exist.
If I set an apple on a table, some may say, "That is an apple." Others may say, "No, it is an orange." Still others may say, "There is no fruit there at all." If 100 people say it is an orange and it really is an apple, the 100 people do not alter the reality of the apple's existence. If the apple is supposedly in a room out of view, and 100 people claim the apple to be there and it really isn't, likewise, the views of those hundred do not cause the apple to exist or not. It either is or isn't regardless of opinion on the matter.
I turned to science as an analogy. For years, people thought the sun revolved around the earth. This was not so crazy an idea. Many calculations regarding seasons work just fine if one thinks about such a universe. However, science later came to the majority opinion that the earth revolves around the sun. Let's assume for the sake of argument what I would guess you all to believe anyhow -- that the earth really does revolve around the sun. Let's assume our source of knowledge in this case is absolutely true. Back in the day, when some brave men posed the idea that the earth revolves around the sun, they were in the minority. Oddly enough, they were right. The opinions of even the majority did not change the facts. Nor did the opinions of other minorities that believed the sun was a new boat sailing across the sky. Regardless of the majority or minority opinions, the earth and sun did what they absolutely do. It just so happened that one of the views (the minority one at that time) happened to be correct one in this case. (That is not always necessarily the case.)
Maybe there is no absolute morality. I do not believe that. I chose not to believe that. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe morality is relative (i.e. does not really exist on its own). Maybe you believe that morality is relative. But if you believe so because "so many different cultures have different moralities" rethink your logic, please.
Truth is not opinion.
I just returned from a weekend trip to New York city. (It was the first time I had ever been actually -- saw Broadway, Times Square, and the MoMA (Museum of Modern Art.) I had an interesting conversation about morality with an older man in the car. It was interesting mostly because he is a staunch relativist and I am a staunch absolutist. The topic has been argued many times before, and I am not so much posting to have it again as to point out a serious logical flaw in his logic and one that I have heard many times prior. (I am fully aware that pointing out this flaw does not necessarily strengthen the argument for absolute morality; it only weakens this particular argument for relativism.)
(Also let me insert on the minuscule chance that he A) uses LJ and B) can track me to this user name and reads this that he is certainly an intelligent man.)
He was arguing that there could not be an absolute morality because there is no agreement as to what that morality is. You will always find some place where it is culturally accepted to lie or steal or sleep with your sister or sacrifice your firstborn or circumcise your women or euthanize the weak or annihilate another race.
I find such "logic" ludicrous.
One cannot logically say anything about absolute morality based on the opinions of the absolute. He is tying to say that morality is defined by popular opinion. This is a possible explanation of where morality comes from, but it is not by any means the only logical conclusion to follow the fact that such differences in opinion exist.
If I set an apple on a table, some may say, "That is an apple." Others may say, "No, it is an orange." Still others may say, "There is no fruit there at all." If 100 people say it is an orange and it really is an apple, the 100 people do not alter the reality of the apple's existence. If the apple is supposedly in a room out of view, and 100 people claim the apple to be there and it really isn't, likewise, the views of those hundred do not cause the apple to exist or not. It either is or isn't regardless of opinion on the matter.
I turned to science as an analogy. For years, people thought the sun revolved around the earth. This was not so crazy an idea. Many calculations regarding seasons work just fine if one thinks about such a universe. However, science later came to the majority opinion that the earth revolves around the sun. Let's assume for the sake of argument what I would guess you all to believe anyhow -- that the earth really does revolve around the sun. Let's assume our source of knowledge in this case is absolutely true. Back in the day, when some brave men posed the idea that the earth revolves around the sun, they were in the minority. Oddly enough, they were right. The opinions of even the majority did not change the facts. Nor did the opinions of other minorities that believed the sun was a new boat sailing across the sky. Regardless of the majority or minority opinions, the earth and sun did what they absolutely do. It just so happened that one of the views (the minority one at that time) happened to be correct one in this case. (That is not always necessarily the case.)
Maybe there is no absolute morality. I do not believe that. I chose not to believe that. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe morality is relative (i.e. does not really exist on its own). Maybe you believe that morality is relative. But if you believe so because "so many different cultures have different moralities" rethink your logic, please.
Truth is not opinion.