A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
September 21, 2004Moral Relativism an Over-rated Trump Card?This is a good one for the bookmarks, IMO. Eugene Volokh is guest-blogging at GlennReynolds.com, and he takes on what he considers an uncompelling trump card too often used by the right, so-called moral relativism. His conclusion? I’ll say it again: I disagree with most liberals on many things. I think their moral and empirical judgments are often mistaken. I think they undervalue certain human rights, such as the right to have the tools needed to defend yourself against criminals, and invent human rights that really shouldn’t be seen as human rights, such as the right to be paid some wage. I think they also undervalue certain social interests and overvalue others. Like they say, read the whole thing. And you know what, feed it to others! Posted by Brian Keegan at September 21, 2004 12:43 PM Comments
I agree with him generally and I will, at the risk of being accused of being a moral relativist, go one step farther. Some moral issues are relative to the time and place. Abraham Lincoln was, by today's standards, a racist. But it is totally unfair to judge him by standards that did not exist. Similarly, it is unrealistic not to acknowledge that moral and intellectual standards are historically situated to some extent. Western views about democracy, the role of the market and individualism, for example, arose within a particular historical framework that resulted in certain assumptions and expectations within individuals and ultimately led to specific institutions that we take for granted. Trying to export the institutions without the cultural and historic framework is difficult if not impossible. That's not to say that it's necessarily wrong to, for example, encourage democratization, but simply to acknowledge that democracy as we understand it entails an entire cognitive universe that is not universal to people outside of western society. Posted by: MWS at September 21, 2004 03:44 PMYup. In other words Rome is not the only thing that wasn't built in a day. I know what you mean. That's why I always try to say things like "something ressembling democracy" or "some form of democracy" or "nascent democracy." It took us, what, a hundred years or more to get from the constitution to women voting. Sunni, Sh'ia, and Kurds are not going to suddenly watch football together on Sundays and let their wives vote, wear bathing suits in public, and work as cocktail waitresses or doctors. We MIGHT be able to get them on the bike with training wheels and point them in the right direction, but sooner or later its up to them, probably MUCH sooner than we'd like even under ideal circumstances. It's the old horse to water problem.... Posted by: bk at September 21, 2004 04:03 PMThere's an interesting discussion on moral relativism at Crooked Timber. It's long and sometimes pedantic (to pervert a phrase from Bones: Dammit Jim, I'm an engineer, not a philosopher!), but an interesting read.
I thought this was a pretty good post. And I completely agree with the incremental democracy points as well. Me too! Posted by: Jon Kay at September 23, 2004 01:15 AM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
