Hello Nola Girl,
This is provocative, and if that was your intent, then very well done.
However, I must say a few things:
To being with, let me note that you're mistaking concepts:
1) There is NO right and wrong
2) We can't help what we do.
This second concept says that, while it MIGHT be a bad thing to murder, we cannot help it if we murder. 2 just says we cannot CHOOSE to do ANYTHING; forget whether or not right and wrong EXIST! Some people believe 2 is accurate; that everything in the Universe has a full and complete cause. The brick doesn't fall from the roof just because the wind was strong; it falls because of the facts of gravity; the angle of the roof; the weight of the brick, etc. And each of these phenomena has a FULL cause; theoretically, this list of causes goes back to the Big Bang/Creation of the Universe. People believe 2 for various reasons, the most compelling being that science (bar some Quantum Physicists) whole-heartedly supports the idea. Einstein, for instance, was aghast at scientists who claimed that sub-atomic particles move randomly.
Anyway, why would we want to deny that everything has a full cause? It would then be silly to suggest that we have Freewill. What, we don't act on causes (our beliefs and desires)? Or, perhaps, you think our beliefs and desires are uncaused? How would this be 'freewill': it seems our desires would flare up out of nowhere. I tend to think that I am free if I act how I want to act, so long as my desires are not random, uncaused occurances. I believe we DO have Freewill, but I wouldn't want "Freewill" in the way you define it. I don't want my decisions to be uncaused; I want them to be in keeping with who I am and how I would act given the circumstance.
In any case, whatever you think of this, it's irrelevant for Moral Relativism. You might think that helping old ladies across the street is a good thing, even if you don't think we can choose to do good things. Moral Relativism isn't saying whether or not we can choose how we act, nor is it saying we are responsible for how we act. All you're objecting to is the idea that there is no objective right and wrong; that is, you're objecting to whether or not it's ACTUALLY, really, wrong to kill people (say). That's NOTHING TO DO with whether or not we are FREE to do such a thing. Take an analgoy: it might be that it is good to personally feed all the starving children in Africa, even though we are (I presume) unable to personally do so. What Relativism is concerned about is the first part of that sentence; that it's a good thing to [insert whatever, here].
Now, you can certainly see where Relativists come from, here: what does 'right' or 'good' mean? Do the words refer to things? Where are these things? Do they refer to concepts, perhaps? Well, where are concepts? Are they in our heads? Then they ARE just parts of cultures. Perhaps they are concepts that exist on some other plane, like heaven, perhaps? Then how, pray tell, could we come to know of them? Are they a rule-set? Who made the rule-set? Why should we follow what this 'maker' says? Because we'll be punished if we don't? Is that really moral, to do something just to avoid punishment or receive reward? And so on.
However, Moral Relativism makes a further, ABSURD claim: that whatever a CULTURE says to do is the right thing to do. That just seems bizarre: why do CULTURES get to create the rules? And, hold on a tic, isn’t it a rule that we should do what cultures say we should do? But don't relativists say there are no moral rules outside of a cultural setting? So where did THIS ‘Cultural Relativist’ rule come from?
Look, I'll agree with the relativists that we shouldn't assume we are always right, and we should respect the opinions of other cultures as much as we respect ours. But, hell, I disagree with a lot going on in my culture: it's NOT disrespectful to disagree! It's not even disrespectful to forcibly stop certain things, not even within your own culture! Why give more importance to other cultures than you would give your own? I agree, Moral Relativism is stupid, and I think quite catastrophic, but not for the reasons you do. You appear to be arguing a different thing altogether; and I don't think you're right there either! (Although I do think we have Freewill! Just not the way you describe it!)
One final note: I agree with Relativists that there is no objective right and wrong. However, I think there is STILL room to act morally. Think of it this way: a knife isn't good; what would that mean? At least, not on it's own. It is, however, good for certain purposes, like buttering toast. I see no reason morality ought not be the same: it's not bad to kill; it's bad to allow people to kill (usually) BECAUSE the person who dies might be you! Or me! Or my child! Or, even, people who I don't know but still don't want to die. Sorry, I wish I could expand on all of this, but I'm fast running out of space. However, in sum:
1) I agree that my actions are fully caused
2) I disagree that Freewill means ‘I could have done otherwise’
3) I agree that we have Freewill
4) Freewill is utterly irrelevant to discussions of Moral Relativism
5) Moral Relativism is stupid, but for it’s own reasons
6) I agree with Moral Relativists who say that there are no objective morals
7) I agree with you that we should still have morals.
Peace out.
Posted: May 20, 2007
Email this story 
Print Story 
Add to reading list
