اندیشهفلسفهخردگفتگوحکمتمعناپرسشفرهنگ
Philosophy
Seven Things You Cannot Do as a Moral Relativist
By denying objective standards, moral relativism strips the individual of the ability to judge the conduct of others, to speak of evil, to pursue justice, to seek moral improvement, or to promote tolerance. An examination of seven logical constraints entailed by accepting relativism in ethics.
So you've decided to be a moral relativist. Great! What could be better than doing whatever you think is right? What could be worse than letting someone tell you what you should and shouldn't do? Besides, relativism is one of the most comfortable attitudes one can adopt toward the world: all you have to do is leave others alone and ask others to do the same for you, and you'll never have to worry about whether your actions are right or wrong again. In fact, as a moral relativist, there are seven things you cannot do. Simply follow the rules that follow, and you'll be free of absolutes forever!
Seven Things You Cannot Do as a Moral Relativist
Rule One: Relativists cannot accuse others of doing wrong
Relativism makes criticizing the behavior of others impossible, because relativism ultimately denies the existence of "wrongdoing." In other words, if you believe that morality is nothing more than a personal definition, then you can never judge the actions of others. Relativists cannot even object to racism on moral grounds. What meaning can the judgment that "apartheid is wrong" have for someone who does not believe in right and wrong? What justification could they have for intervening in apartheid? Surely human rights cannot be a justification, because there can be no such thing as a right. Relativism is the ultimate right to choose, because it accepts everyone's choice – even the choice to be a racist.
Rule Two: Relativists cannot say anything about the problem of evil
The existence of evil in the world is one of the major criticisms leveled against arguments for the existence of God. Their argument is that if God is all-powerful and all-good, then evil should not exist. But since evil does exist, one of these three scenarios must be true: God lacks the power to confront evil, God is not good and is unconcerned with the problem of evil, or God does not exist at all. Of course, to advance any of these arguments, you must believe in evil, but relativists cannot believe in the existence of evil. In fact, nothing can be called evil, because accepting the existence of evil requires accepting some kind of moral standard.
Rule Three: Relativists cannot blame anyone or accept praise
Praise and blame would be completely meaningless in relativism, because there is no moral standard by which we can judge what should be condemned and what should be praised. Without absolutes, nothing can be absolutely bad, tragic, or blameworthy. Nor is anything absolutely good, respectable, or praiseworthy. All of these things fall on the horizon of moral absurdity. Those who claim to be relativists are usually inconsistent on this point (they want to avoid blame but are receptive to praise), so be careful!
Rule Four: Relativists cannot claim that something is unjust or unfair
In relativism, justice and fairness are two concepts that have absolutely no meaning. First, these words themselves would be meaningless; both of these words are based on equality according to a real standard of what is right, and as I have said several times so far, relativists cannot believe in right and wrong. Second, there is no such thing as guilt. Justice implies the punishment of the guilty or the wrongdoer, and guilt depends on blame, which, as I have shown, does not exist!
Rule Five: Relativists cannot improve their own morality
With relativism, moral improvement is impossible. Certainly, relativists can change their personal morality, but they can never be a moral person. Moral reform depends on some kind of objective standard for action. But this standard is precisely what relativists deny. If there is no better way, there can be no improvement. Moreover, there will be no motivation for improvement. Relativism destroys the moral motivation that causes individuals to transcend themselves, because for them, there is no such thing as transcendence. Why should you change your moral point of view if your current view serves your self-interest and you feel good right now?
Rule Six: Relativists Cannot Have Meaningful Moral Discussions
Relativism renders discussion about morality meaningless. It leaves nothing to discuss. Moral discussion means comparing the merits of one viewpoint with another to find out which viewpoint is better. But if morality is completely relative and all viewpoints are equally valid, then no way of thinking is superior to any other. In that case, no moral position can be called ineffective, irrational, unacceptable, or even barbaric. In fact, if moral debates are meaningful only if morality is objective, then relativism can only survive in silence. It cannot even say, "It is wrong to impose your morality on others."
Rule Seven: Relativists Cannot Promote Tolerance and Toleration
Finally, tolerance and toleration do not exist in relativism, because a moral commitment to tolerance violates these rules. The principle of tolerance is often examined as one of the main virtues of relativism. Morality is personal, so we should tolerate differing opinions by not judging people's behaviors and character. But it should be clear that this principle fails due to contradiction. If there are no moral rules, there can be no rule demanding tolerance as a moral principle. In fact, if there are no absolutes in morality, why be tolerant at all? If it is in your interest and your personal morality allows it, why not impose your morality on others? Just make sure you remain silent if you choose to do so.
.
.
Seven Things You Cannot Do as a Moral Relativist
Greg Koukl, President of Stand to Reason
Translation: Zuhair Bagheri Noaparast
.
.
Discussion7 comments
سلام چنین می نماید که نویسنده پی آمدهای نسبی گرایی شخصی را با نسبی گرایی فرهنگی یکی انگاشته است هفت کار را نسبی گرای شخصی نمی تواند انجام دهد اما چه بسا برخی از آن ها را نسبی گرای فرهنگی بتواند برای مثال این که نمی توانند دیگران را متهم به بی اخلاقی کنند یا داوری اخلاقی امکان پذیر نیست به نحو اولی درباره نسبی گرایی شخصی درست است. مقصود این است که پی آمدهای ناگوار همه اشکال نسبی گرایی یکسان نیست. نویسنده می بایست ابتدا نسبی گرایی را تعریف می کرد و یا می گفت تلقی تم چنین یا چنان بوده سپس لوازم اتخاذ چنین دیدگاهی را بر می شمرد...
متن اصلی : http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo1/koukl.php
خیلی نکات جالبی بود تاحالا اینجوری به مسئله نگاه نکرده بودم
نسبی گرایی را تعریف نکرده اند . بنا بر این که چه تعریفی از نسبی گرایی ارایه شود ، ممکن است « کارهایی » که به گفته « گرگ کوکل » نمی توان انجام داد ، قابل انجام دادن باشند . امری که به نظر یکی درست و خوب است ، به نظر دیگری نادرست و بد است ؛ مثلاً طبق مثال قدیمی « برزگر از باران خوشحال می شود و گازر ( رختشوی ) ناخشنود » . آیا باور به تنوع و تغییر داوری های ارزشی با تغییر افراد و موقعیت آن ها ، با باور و عمل به « اخلاق » ناسازگار است ؟ به گمانم « نه » ، زیرا باورهای مشترک و عمومی ـ حتا در گستره نوع انسان ـ می تواند مبنای داوری باشد ، و اساساً چنین هست . به نظر می رسد که نسبی گرایی و مطلق اندیشی دو قطب و کانون متضاد هستند و افراد بین این دو قطب قرار می گیرند و در مقایسه با هم ، به یکی از دو قطب نزدیکترند . مطلق اندیش ترین افراد هم برخی اعمال را برای برخی یا در موقعیت خاص روا و در جای ـ گاه دیگر و برای افراد دیگر ناروا می دانند و همیشه ـ همه جا ـ برای همه نسخه یکسان نمی پیچند .
نسبی گراهای ایرانی بسیار جالبند. گاهی چنان با تعصب از نسبی گرایی دفاع می کنند که کمتر مومنی را پیدا می کنی که چنین رفتار متعصبانه ای نشان بهد.
لابد رانندگی و آشپزی حامل گی و ... هم نمیتوننرانندگی بکنند. اتفاقا رواداری و مدارا از نتایج نسبی گراهاست. الان دیگه فقط یه مغز زندانی یا بهزیستی ، نگاه تک بعدی به دنیا داره.
سلام بهتره اول راجع به نسبی گرایی و بعدش دوباره قسمت رواداری این مقاله رو بخونید