MORAL REALISM AND MORAL RELATIVISM

By: Ron White

As transportation and communication technologies gradually blur the traditional borders between human communities, sub-communities, and individuals, and as a result, we seem to be moving toward a more global socio-economic order, many interesting philosophical puzzles emerge. Certainly one of the most obvious puzzles is the fact that as we interact with other humans in this rapidly shrinking global environment we invariably encounter conflicting beliefs. Some of these conflicting beliefs raise questions about matters of descriptive fact and some address matters of prescriptive value. Thus, along with this process of globalization we increasingly find ourselves either questioning or defending our existing beliefs. And of course, our beliefs ultimately effect how we relate with those individuals and communities in that global environment.

But are there, in fact, universal and objective facts and/or moral values that might serve as the foundation for a global morality? If there are either universal facts or values, how do these facts and values relate to one another? As universal knowledge of the facts increases, does that necessarily increase our knowledge of the universal values that ought to be upheld by this rapidly emerging global community?

Traditionally, philosophers have offered two opposing theories that might explain the ultimate nature of Truth and Values: realism and relativism.

REALISM

Simply stated, realism claims that there are at least some timeless universal facts or timeless universal values that serve as the foundation for our true beliefs. Scientific realism argues that there are, at least some descriptive beliefs that are timeless and universally true, and independent of what individuals or communities think about those facts. “Water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level “ comes to mind. If you believe it boils at 32 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level you are objectively wrong. It is also a fact that worldwide, most human females are subject to domination by males, and systematically deprived of their liberty and are often physically abused by males.

Moral realism argues that there at least some prescriptive beliefs that are similarly true, that correspond to values that are universally good, and independent of what individuals or communities think about those values. Although it is a fact that many patriarchal societies believe in female inequality and that it is morally acceptable for men to physically abuse their wives and children, most of us in the Western world believe that this kind of behavior is morally unacceptable that those who believe otherwise are both wrong and bad. (You’re not a bad person if you have a false belief in respect to the boiling point of water. That’s why most Western countries have laws against spousal and child abuse, but do not have laws against harboring false beliefs concerning the boiling point of water.) But is there some way to establish a foundational universal morality that would apply to all human beings at all times and in all places? Or simply stated, are there “Universal human rights and duties?”

Philosophically, the Western concept of human rights is usually invokes reference to some form of timeless universality. Philosophically, if there are timeless and universal moral truths, there must be some sort of a timeless and universal foundation for that belief. Foundationalism, (or realism) is rooted in a theory of Truth and/or Value based on a one-to-one correspondence between belief and reality. Hence, true beliefs correspond to the dictates of foundational reality and false beliefs contradict that reality. In the Western tradition, moral truth serves as the foundation for universal human rights and the duties and obligations that support those rights. Hence, if all women have a universal right to not to be beaten by their husbands, then husbands have a universal obligation to refrain from that activity. If there are in fact timeless universal moral truths, then there must also be some timeless universal sanctions that enforce morality.

Historically, moral philosophers have defended two alternative foundations for universal morality: supernaturalism and naturalism. Supernaturalism invokes the moral authority of forces external to the natural order. Historically, this has most often been invoked in the guise of deontological moral theories, especially divine command theory. Hence, universal moral truth is based on the “Word of God” as revealed by the writings and/or testimony of human beings that serve as intermediaries between the natural and the supernatural worlds. These intermediaries usually base universality on the idea that all human beings are children of the same good, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God. Hence, the unquestioned authority of God is usually supported by our inability to escape God’s timeless and universal vigilance to detect non-compliance with universal rules, and our inability to resist God’s timeless and universal enforcement of those rules.

Naturalism argues that the foundation for morality lies in the facts of human nature. The Western liberal tradition, which is based on natural law, has identified a variety of particular facts about human nature that might serve as the foundation for moral truth: most notably, the attributes of atomic individuality, rationality and free will.

Atomic individuality basically affirms that despite our propensity to live in groups, we are, nevertheless, self-interested individuals by nature. Hence, moral rules that promote the advancement of individual self-interest are grounded in the facts of human nature. The human attribute of rationality is usually invoked as natural means by which human beings come to know either facts or values and free will refers to the ability to human beings to, not only know what’s right, but also the ability to do what’s right. Taken together, rationality and free will serve as the foundation for holding human beings responsible for their behavior: that is to say, that we can be held responsible for knowing what’s right and doing it and that when nature impedes either reason or free will we do not hold those individuals responsible for immoral or illegal behavior.

Sometimes individuality, rationality and free will are attributed to divine creation. Sometimes they are attributed to the blind forces of evolution. But the basic idea is that nature has endowed the vast majority of human beings with the ability to know moral rules and the ability to follow those rules. Enforcement of these rules can emanate from either supernatural or natural sources.

Timelessly universal moral truths are often attributed to rationality alone, which is usually explained in terms of timelessly universal like-mindedness. Of course likemindedness can be explained in supernatural terms via the God and an eternal human soul, or in natural terms involving a neuronic human brain.

Some realists attribute morality to reason and likemindedness, while others point to feelings and sentience as the universal foundation. Hedonists, for example, argue that feelings of pleasure indicate the moral good, and feelings of pain signify morally bad. Now if feelings provide a foundation for universal morality, then empirically, we should be able to identify a certain list of universal pleasurable feelings and universal painful feelings that underscore moral and immoral behavior. Many even argue that these feelings serve as the objective foundation for universal rules. For example: the moral principle of utility (Greatest Happiness Greatest Number) can be justified based on the universality of feelings of pleasure and pain; beneficence, non-maleficence can be based on feelings of sympathy; liberty can be based on the human pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain; and justice can be based on feelings of retribution.

Evolutionary ethics is based on the idea that our moral feelings are rooted in our evolutionary history and that these feelings somehow facilitate the transmission of human genes via sexual reproduction. Hence, evolutionary ethics often seeks to establish morality based on detailed empirical knowledge of our central nervous system, brains and their genetic foundations. Evolutionary ethicists, therefore, argue that despite the apparent cultural diversity of moral prescriptions, at least some universal prescriptions that are evidenced by feelings and behaviors universally generated by our bodies, which are genetically programmed. For example, they argue that human behavior is universally rooted in egoistic self-interest. Therefore, in the real world altruism is most frequently exercised toward family (kin altruism). The strength feelings of sympathy are proportionate to the likelihood that we share genes with that person. That’s why it’s so difficult for us to reach into our pockets to help out distant nations that are starving to death.

There are many other examples. Take another example, our universal moral condemnation of cannibalism and incest suggest an evolutionary foundation. So does our universal moral demand for retribution for acts of injustice perpetrated by other human beings. Finally, we tend to possess feelings that drive us to reconcile with our former enemies.

Also included within this evolutionarily-based line of moral reasoning is the idea that our social and political instincts are also rooted in human nature and that morality is linked to our natural propensity to organize ourselves in hierarchical groups comprised of leaders and followers.

Keep in mind that the lines between supernaturalism and naturalism are not always crystal clear as many supernaturalists see nature as endowed with divine presence and many naturalists, more or less endow nature with divine attributes without invoking supernatural agency. Kantian ethics is probably the best example of a universal moral system based on natural law that blurs the line between supernaturalism and naturalism by requiring us to act on universal principles, even if it means refraining from perfectly natural self-interested behavior.

Again, the basic problem with evolutionary ethics and all moral systems based on natural law is that nature also seems to have programmed us with an awful lot of immoral behavior too. Commonsense seems to tell us that just because a particular behavior is natural does not necessarily imply that it is good.

RELATIVISM

Relativism is simply the denial of the either descriptive or prescriptive universality. It usually implies that our beliefs about Truth and/or Value are contextually conditioned. Here the criterion for Truth and/or Value is internal logical consistency, or coherence. A coherence theory of Truth and/or Value, therefore, distinguishes between true/good belief and false/bad beliefs based on the existing relationship between new beliefs and old beliefs; that is, new beliefs are accepted or rejected based on what an individual, sub-community, or community has already been accepted as true or good. So if a new belief contradicts old beliefs already held as true, then based on logic, we must either reject the new belief as false, or reject the old belief(s) that contradict that new belief. It is important to note that social scientists tell us that when there is a conflict between old beliefs and new beliefs, that there is a strong tendency for human beings to maintain old beliefs. This tendency to preserve old beliefs is embedded in the idea of a practice or tradition.

Finally, new beliefs that are consistent with an already existing body of old beliefs, or a tradition, are easier to nurture than new beliefs that contradict old beliefs. Full blown relativists typically dismiss or downplay biological foundationalism and argue that all beliefs are relative to some already existing body of belief, or tradition and that human nature is infinitely malleable.

So relativists argue that truth and/or value are matters of tradition and logical consistency. Philosophers have discerned two basic theories that attempt to deal with the question of the level at which logical consistency is to be invoked, which establishes the foundation for ultimate authority on matters of fact or value: individualism and communitarianism.

Individualism states that conflicts of belief can only be resolved only at the level of individual belief systems and that Truth and/or Value are, essentially, matters of personal belief. Hence, if you and I, as individuals, disagree on a question of Truth and/or Value, there is no real conflict or contradiction and there is no external authority that can resolve our disagreement. Full-blown absolute individualists argue that both Truth and Value are like “matters of taste” “You like apples, I like oranges.” And, therefore, are incommensurable. So, if you believe water boils at 32 degrees and that wife beating is morally acceptable, that’s OK. Your beliefs are as valid as mine. There is no way to reconcile the contradiction.

The problem with absolute individualism is that it tends toward descriptive and prescriptive anarchy, which undermines our most basic, common sense notions about Truth and Value, and community. Indeed some individuals always express beliefs that are in obvious contradiction to the beliefs expressed by the overwhelming majority of a community. Although there are at least some communities that tolerate various degrees of descriptive and prescriptive anarchy within their ranks, there are very few real life communities that actually believe in full-blown absolute individualism.

Communitarianism (or cultural relativism) is most often associated with the philosophical doctrine that holds that our beliefs concerning matters of Truth and/or Value are relative to human communities. Cultural Relativists, therefore, argue that there is no universal foundation for human beliefs outside of a specific cultural context. But conflicting beliefs between individuals and communities can be authoritatively resolved in favor of the sentiment expressed by communities. Hence, Truth and/or Value are essentially “constructed” by communities and most often venerated as traditions. Thus we can discern two rather amorphous forms of communitarianism: small group communitarianism and large group communitarianism.

Small group communitarians argue that small groups, or organizations such as families, local government, religions etc. either, as a matter of fact, make truth and/or value; or they ought to make truth and/or value. Hence, small group communitarians seek to protect the autonomous beliefs (and traditions) of small groups from border raids staged by opposing individuals, opposing small groups, or opposing large groups. In the United States, small group communitarianism is often reflected in questions of legal jurisdiction at the local, state, or federal level; and in issues that involve the “rights” of small religious communities (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses) to make Truth and/or Value without interference from local, state, or federal governmental agencies.

Toleration is one of the core values that underlie Western liberal societies. It expresses our belief that individual and small communities have a right to believe whatever they want, so long as their beliefs do not harm others. Of course, many individuals, small groups, and large groups embrace intolerance as a moral principle in order to shield their own beliefs from outside interference. So small group communitarianism embraces the idea that Truth and/or Value are relative to the beliefs held by any identifiable microcosmic community. Of course, this raises the obvious question of how many individuals constitute a community. Do families have an unlimited right to manufacture Truth and/or Value? And of course, small groups are comparatively powerless in relation to larger communities, which raise questions of how to enforce the rights of small groups that reside amidst larger intolerant groups. Conversely, large group communitarians argue that matters of Truth and/or Value can only be resolved at the macrocosmic level; that is at the level of nations, civilizations, or in the case of business organizations at the level of an industry. Universalistic communitarians relegate truth and/or value to the global community.

The idea of a tradition is philosophically and scientifically murky. At least some behaviors that we attribute to longstanding cultural tradition (both good and bad), actually, are embedded in human nature and have some sort of a universal biological foundation. On the other hand, many traditions are obviously nurtured by social and political regimes or authorities that lead families, local communities, organizations, nations, and civilizations. Those traditions that are solely the product of social learning are cultivated in followers by leaders, and sustained almost entirely by enforced repetition. Realists simply argue that it is much easier to enforce a tradition that has some sort of a biological foundation. For example, given the worldwide prevalence of egoism, racism, sexism, and xenophobia, and war suggest a biological foundation, which means that it’s probably fairly easy to maintain traditions that promote self-interest, discriminate against racial minorities, women, and other cultures. Conversely, it is very difficult to maintain moral traditions based on equality and peace. Given the worldwide distain for incest and cannibalism, it would be very difficult to introduce and maintain those practices as cultural traditions. Traditions that have no biological foundation or run counter to human nature require increasing coercive methods of indoctrination and are often enforced by civil laws enforced by punishment. The most idiosyncratic traditions and beliefs that contradict common sense are most often nurtured by reference to supernatural authorities and backed up with both worldly and otherworldly threats.

In sum, as we become exposed to the beliefs of others, I think all we like to believe that at least some of our beliefs correspond to objective universal Truth. We also like to believe there are at least at least some beliefs that reflect universal Goodness. And we, as a matter of fact, act on the basis of that belief. Although we may tolerate, at least some variance expressed by some individuals and communities, all humans at all times and in all places believe that truth and goodness are universal. Unfortunately, when we encounter beliefs that conflict with our own, we always seem to identify that universality with our own beliefs, and therefore, seek to convince others that our beliefs are universal and that theirs are not. When we cannot convince others that our beliefs are True, we also tend to use force to inflict our beliefs on them.

Now if we believe that the standards of Truth and/or Value are predicated at the global universal level, we are saying that there are at least some beliefs concerning Truth and/or Value that all human beings embrace or, at least ought to embrace. This is a form of universalism, which states that false beliefs held by individuals and sub-communities, can be identified in reference to a set of universal beliefs embraced by the global community. The basic problem with universal Globalism is the absence of an international regime capable of enforcing universal laws. For better or worse, as long as there are nations and religious traditions that possess enough coercive power to resist international compliance, self-interested nationalism will prevail over universal Globalism.

HISTORICAL RELATIVISM

Of course the beliefs held by individuals, sub-communities, and communities change over time. Historical Relativism asserts that Truth and/or Value is relative to the cohered beliefs held at some particular time and that there is no way to resolve conflicts between generations of believers. Therefore, we in the present cannot judge the past based on present standards of Truth and/or Value. So cultural relativists argue that inter-cultural beliefs are incommensurable and that there is no way to resolve conflicting beliefs between cultures living at the same time. Historical relativists state that intra-cultural beliefs expressed at various points of time within the history of a culture are also incommensurable and that there is no way to resolve conflicting beliefs between generations. Therefore, relativist historians are will not pass judgment on the beliefs of the past. The best they can do, is document the historical context of the beliefs expressed by past generations. Our beliefs and the beliefs of the past are incommensurable.

Of course, this raises eyebrows when historians of science look back on the obviously fallacious scientific theories of the past (such as the Aristotelian geocentric universe or the Hippocratic Doctrine of the Humors) and cannot make the commonsense assertion that these theories have been falsified and do not correspond to reality. Rather, they must make strange sounding statements like: “Those theories were true back in the fifth century B.C., but they are false today.” In terms of morality, relativists look back on seemingly immoral practices such as slavery and argue that slavery was morally justified in early 19^th century Virginia, but became immoral late in the century. Relativists cannot assert that plantation owners were immoral or that they didn’t know that slavery was wrong until it was “discovered” late in the century. The best historical relativists can do is explain why past generations believed what they did relative to other widely held beliefs (facts and or values) at the time. In short, present historians cannot judge the beliefs of past generations as either false or bad.

Some stalwart realist historians believe that although our beliefs do in fact change over time, that process of change is evolutionary, and that, over the long run, our beliefs are at least progressing closer to the ideals of Truth and Goodness. So when they encounter the fact that past societies believed that “The earth is the center of the universe” and that “Human slavery is good.” They can at least argue that although those beliefs were true in historical context, but false relative to our present context. And although, some future generation may make similar judgments about our beliefs, they would agree that our beliefs about the universe and slavery were at least closer to the Truth than the beliefs of previous generations.