Moral relativism, the idea that there is no unique right answer to any given problem of what to do and how to behave, has for a long time been the very height of intellectual chic. Its proponents, when not wanting to simply scandalise, can appear worldly, travelled and perhaps even a little louche. To its opponents, it is the very depth of intellectual depravity, and very principled, upright and serious of purpose they can sound too. It's an argument that has been going on since the classical Greeks - who seem to be the first to notice that people did things different than they did in Piraeus and didn't seem to be any the worse for it.
The argument over whether there is always One Right Answer is irrelevant for one simple reason: the principle of rationality requires us to describe at least one set of circumstances under which we would give up that very answer even if we thought we had it. If you want to be a rational absolutist, you will have to describe any of your principles in such exquisite, counter-example defying detail, that it will never be usable twice. It will be perfect, and perfectly useless. But this debate seems to generate a lot of heat and is not going to go away on a technical point about rationality and practicality. This suggests that there is something else going on. It's not about moral epistemology, but something else. What?
There is always the psychological explanation: absolutists had strict parents or don't tolerate Others very well, relativists are easy-going and like variety. That may explain where some of the heat comes from, but it doesn't explain why the parents are strict. Where's the benefit? Strict is hard work and makes Jack a dull boy.
Moral absolutism has the same purpose as an idiosyncratic diet or the requirement to circumcise males: it stops one tribe mixing with another and thus maintains the authority of the priests, rulers and wise men. How, after all, can you in all conscience inter-marry with someone who worships false gods and has such barbaric ceremonies? How could you even sit at the same table with people who eat pork? How could anyone call themselves a man who let his daughter go around with whichever men she chose? These are, after all, serious matters, affecting our very identity and honour.
Or not, if you really need the people from that country across the Mediterranean to trade in your ports. Faced with the need to get spices, wheat, decent armour and other exotic goods, we can surely overlook the minor matter of which Gods they worship? Does it matter if they have two wives each, when what we need is a safe passage through their country? It is entirely possible that moral relativism was developed from a series of practical observations to a full-fledged theory by Greek intellectuals in response to their merchant economy's need for a theory to peddle to the xenophobic crowd.
The same principle applies to running an Empire. If what matters is getting the taxes and whatever raw materials and land you were after and being able to work and transport stuff safely, then do you really care if they worship a pagan fertility god and burn wives after the husband dies? It's about the oil, right? The European Empires started to go downhill once European women started to live in them and, of course, when the missionaries started converting the natives. It's one thing to steal something I didn't know was valuable, but entirely another to have some jumped-up woman from Surrey telling me I'm a savage. Especially when her uncle was having an affair with my daughter back in the day. (Think India, not Africa.)
That's what the relativism vs absolutism debate is really about. Absolutists are looking for reasons not to deal with Others, whereas relativists are looking for reasons to deal with as many Others as have something interesting to trade - provided they obey the basic rules of trade and communal life. Because while nothing is absolute, some things are non-negotiable: paying bills, delivering goods, honouring deals, keeping promises and neither killing, stealing nor holding to ransom. You want to trade in our country, you obey our commercial laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment