Can One Be a Moral Relativist and Still Believe in the Existence of Right and Wrong?

Can  One Be a  Moral Relativist and Still Believe in the Existence of Right and Wrong?

How can one reconcile living in a country in which we believe in both absolute forms of right and wrong and yet subscribe to a belief in moral relativism?   How can one person (though not usually in the same breath) proclaim the belief that we all determine our own morality based on internal and external causes and yet condemn someone for failing to live up to certain moral standards.  Does a person not find it hypocritical to try to impose his values on others while claiming that moral judgments are relative?  At first glance, it appears as though we have a disjuncture of beliefs. 

                Yet, before we start making these people wear a crimson H on their chests to mark their hypocritical nature, we must consider the possibility that moral relativism and moral absolutism can possibly be reconciled in to one belief system.  One might be inclined to argue that something cannot both be absolute and relative.  Let us first confront the issue of definitions.  Moral absolutism is the easier starting place, as it seems to be less in dispute over what is intended by the term (though as with all alleged indisputable facts, there are those who would dispute this).  Moral absolutists believe that there is an absolute and incontrovertible existence of things that are right or wrong.  What is less clear is if all actions are able to be labeled as either right or wrong.  It would seem that picking up an empty cup and pretending to drink would not be morally right or wrong.  But something like making false accusations against a friend to benefit your own career would be viewed by most moral absolutists as undeniably wrong. 

                Moral relativists are a little harder to define.  At least three major versions exist.  The descriptive relativists simply state that there is disagreement over what morals should be held as absolute.  The meta-ethical relativist believes that there is no correct system of morality.  Still, meta-ethical relativists believe that while there is no right version of morality, there are versions that are more correct than others.   And finally, normative relativists believe there can be no true moral standards and that we should tolerate all things regardless of our personal beliefs.   According to this belief, one action is as good as another.  To a normative relativist, helping your grandmother take her medicine is no better or worse than poisoning your grandmother to expedite your inheritance (at least in relation to your personal moral choices).

                What quickly becomes evident is that depending on how we use each term (absolutism and relativism), it changes the difficulty level one faces in trying to reconcile the discrepancies between preaching toleration of different moral beliefs and yet holding some things as absolutely right or wrong.  What also become immediately obvious is that most Americans touting a belief in moral relativism are either descriptive or meta-ethical relativists.  To be a normative relativist at the same time as trying to promote moral views would be hypocritical beyond defense. 

                But if we look at descriptive or meta-ethical relativists, one can see how it is possible to plausibly argue that one could still hold certain moral standards as worth defending.  A descriptive relativist might belief that what moral values are correct is up for debate while still believing that they have found some ethical stances upon which a firm footing has been established.  And a meta-ethical relativist might believe that we cannot have one set of moral values that are labeled as the right ones while still believing he has found certain values that can be defended as better than alternative choices.

                So ultimately, it does not appear that there is an inherent hypocrisy underlying the fact that so many Americans are both moral relativists at the same time as taking stances that appear to run parallel to what would be expected from a moral absolutist.   In short, we can allow that our vision of the world is best while accepting that we might be wrong.  

                 

Abandoning Our Gifted Children

Abandoning Our Gifted Children

I would like to make an appeal to common sense.  In the National budget for 2006, $9.6 million dollars was allocated for gifted education.  The total budget for the Education Department in 2006 was $84 billion.  This means, less than 0.02% (yes, point zero two, NOT 2%) is spent on gifted education.  Yet, gifted students make up approximately 5% of the population in public education.   And why is it that we spend less than 0.02% on 5% of the student body?  Likely, because there are too many people (and sadly these people are as likely to be teachers as people in the general public) who make statements like “gifted kids will be fine, they already know what they need to know”.  While others argue that all children benefit from all the money spent on education (but having been a teacher I know this is not true).  So, because we, as a nation, refuse to spend money on children with amazing abilities to learn at rapid speeds and at higher intellectually challenging levels than their age-mates, we force these children to sit in classrooms where it is shown they will already know as much as 75% of the material being taught.  And for most of these kids, it would only take one or two presentations of the material they did not know to have mastered it.  Yet, because they are grouped with children of all ranges of abilities from full mental retardation to the average student (thanks to the current push for inclusion), these gifted students are forced to spend weeks of constant repetition learning what they learned long before they entered the classroom.  If this doesn’t convince you an injustice is occurring, imagine you go to a movie theater. Now, imagine being forced to watch a part of a movie ten or twenty times before you could move on to the next scene in the movie because someone in the theater just couldn’t catch on to what the current scene was about.  Yet, let me go further.  Suppose the manager of the theater had to pause the movie for several minutes at a time while they tried to explain the movie to each individual moviegoer having trouble understanding the scene.  Yet, you understood it the first time through.  Would you consider this fair?  Then why do we force gifted children to sit in classrooms  where they are hearing (over and over and over again) things they already have learned, often bored to the point of wishing they were not gifted (as many gifted kids will eventually put all their efforts into appearing as though they are not gifted).  There are many nations around the world that spend a lot more money and effort developing the amazing abilities possessed by their gifted populations.  And this explains why so many of the jobs in our country that require higher levels of thinking and intelligence are taken by people from foreign countries.  Why have we, as a nation, decided to abandon our children who demonstrate amazing intellectual abilities?  Why do we not try to promote these abilities so that we may all benefit from what these children can eventually accomplish?  If we truly want renewable energy sources, cures for diseases like cancer and AIDS, and solutions to the many problems we face in today’s world, why is it we ignore those with the most potential to accomplish these goals?  Do we not care, or are we just unaware that these children are being ignored?   If we care, it is time for us, our local schools boards and the administrators to demand that we offer more programs for our gifted children and full day programs for our most gifted children.  And let us hope our politicians will listen.  And if not, let us replace them with those that will.  We must return to some degree of ability grouping within schools.  To ignore the needs of these children should be considered criminal and is without a doubt detrimental to the future of our country.  If this plea has fallen upon deaf ears, I fear I mistakenly started this appeal with a plea to what was never present to begin with. 

Socrates and Plato Discuss an Accident

One day Socrates sat with Plato in their usual philosophizing spot and together they began what they hoped would be another one of their famous discussions. 

Socrates: What a wonderful day for a philosophical discussion.

Plato: Is there such a thing as a day that is not wonderful for such a discussion.

S: Have you heard about the young man that they now keep connected to life support in an effort to keep the man alive? It is certain that the man would die if he were removed from this crutch to life. 

P:  I imagine the doctor will be well compensated for her time spent aiding this man in his recovery. 

S:  The doctor will be paid nothing for her effort.  And what’s more, the doctor must spend every waking moment at the man’s side for the next several months to give the man a chance to recover. Though, the doctor is free to live life with relative normalcy. The patient will simply accompany the doctor where ever she goes.  The life support system is quite portable.

P:  Oh, well that does change how I first perceived this situation.  Still, when one weighs the cost of several months of that doctor’s life being disrupted versus the entire life of the young patient it seems that the logical choice would be for the doctor to work to save the man’s life. 

S:  I must confess that I have not told you the entire situation.  The man on life support has no arms.

P: What a truly horrible accident he must have been in.  But still this does not justify the doctor abandoning the patient’s life.  The lack of arms does not devalue life to a point of abandonment.

S:  I will share more with you then.  The patient has no legs.

P:  The poor soul!  Does the divine one have no mercy?  Still, the doctor surely will continue to tend to the man.

S:  Then I must go further and reveal that the man has no head. 

P:  Ahh, you hold the most important detail until the end.  I’m not sure the doctor would serve any purpose in tending to such a patient.  Would such a life be worth saving?

S:  Then let me add to the equation some additional factors to consider.  First, the man will eventually gain back his arms and legs.  And he will additionally grow a head.  This will occur during the course of a few months. 

P: And after that time will he recover full use of his body and mind, since clearly neither is functional at this time?

S:  There is a good chance he will regain all of his functioning, though there is a small chance that there may be some defects in the end. 

P:  I would hate to think that life would be forsaken because of defects.  Unless this world is truly merciless, I hope we take pity on those with such difficulties.  And terminating one’s life for the lack of abilities does not sound merciful.  How long before this patient will make a recovery?  I would love to meet such a survivor!

S:  After such an accident, it usually takes nine months to recover.