moral relativism -- the right loves it!

[Bill McBlueState]

One of the "isms" we on the left get accused of is moral relativism -- the idea that there's no universal moral standard and all moral opinions are equal. (This is how the right describes it, anyway.)

But this is what the right has been doing for years now! Whenever you watch any of the evening pundits, every single issue that's debated has two positions: the conservative one and the liberal one. Everyone's expected to agree with whatever "team" they've already signed up with. Since all opinions are politically driven, every opinion is as good as the next, it just depends on what side you're on.

The right has attempted to totally squelch the idea of opinions informed by facts. I'm reminded of this because of the discussions we've been having about the liberal views of college professors. Maybe college professors, and journalists for that matter, are more liberal because their job is to think about problems in detail -- to see the truth of the matter rather than accept "common sense." Perhaps these people are liberal because in most cases, the liberal position really *is* the correct position, and the conservative position is a result of limited information, or a narrow view of the world.

All opinions are not equal! If your leg hurts, you don't ask David Horowitz about it, you ask a doctor. If you want to know about the cause of poverty, you don't ask the president of College Republicans, you ask a sociologist. And maybe the sociologist will give you a liberal answer, but hey, the sociologist has spent a *lot* more time thinking about and researching the answer.

[DarkPhenyx]

1. So does the left.

It gets used by people on our side of the divide every single day.

You are fooling yourself if you believe anything different.

[Physicist]

2. objectivity vs. relativism

One bogus source of charges of relativism is that standards of quality work in social sciences requires objectivity. For example, an anthropologist must try to be objective and not judge another culture by Western standards. But this does not mean that every cultural practice is morally right.

The Republicans are also notable for their scientific relativism, i.e. their rejection of science when it contradicts their preferences.

By the way, I noticed you are an WMASS astronomer. Do you know about Soon and Baliunas, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Astronomers who wrote the flawed literature review of paleoclimate that is a favorite of the oil industry, Bushco, and several Neanderthals in the Senate? Is anything happening to them, or are they still smashing the china?

[salinen]

3. Howdy Physicist

Be careful, someone may welcome you to DU.

[Physicist]

4. I am itching to post

I am itching to post the website www.saveourclimate.org, but how many posts do I have to post to be allowed to start a new thread?

I got kicked out of freerepublic.com because I dared to post something on (ozone depleting and cancer causing) methyl bromide. Looks like freerepublic is not so free. Democratic Underground is a bit more freewheeling.

[BillZBubb]

6. Couldn't make the cut in Freeperville!

That's a hoot. I don't know what the magic number is to start a new thread, but I think I had about 20 posts when I got one going.

Welcome aboard, I look forward to some good threads on climate change--you know that "pseudo-science" the Bush* keeps dismissing.

[AlienGirl]

5. Hi Physicist!

:hi: Just wanted to welcome you to DU and say I like your handle! Physics is so cool...

Tucker

[leftyandproud]

7. I think..

you have moral relativism defined wrong...

The way I hear it when right wingers are talking about it...is when they condemn the "we are the world" left...those on our side who refuse to take a stand against certain human behavior..who refuse to admit that our society ("western" culture) is superior in many ways to other cultures. We have tribal societies in africa that practice cannibalism..forced sterilization of women, etc etc). Some cultures are living 800 years in the past. I think it's ok for us to say that some of these practices are simply WRONG..but too often, we have whacko PC types on our side who say "You can't judge...you have a 'eurocentric' view...Killing and eating people is perfectly justified in their society...There is no objective morality. We are a world community and this is just part of our diversity. You can't condemn anyone..."

thats what I think they mean by the term 'moral relativism'.

[thebigidea]

8. could you name some people that regularly defend cannibalism?

[leftyandproud]

10. not regularly..

but I have heard people saying phrases like those mentioned above when talking about obviously barbaric and primitive societies. I think the whole 'nonjudgemental' attitude is stupid. Humanity is supposed to make progress, and we have people striving to live in the 8th century today. I think it's perfectly ok to call them idiots...and to NOT respect them for their "diversity", and their difference of opinion when it comes to human rights..

[kodi]

9. okie-dokie..describe your moral base

because that is what the right and the religionists are talking about. they are not simply contesting via analog logic of this or that. they are describing their foes as without a consistent moral and ethical perspective.

one case, abortion and capital punishment.

if all life is sacred, or that the state has no right to take a life, why so cast your eyes away when a woman has an abortion. the standard defense is that the rights of the woman override the right of the fetus. fair enough, one is a person the other merely protoplasm with the potential for human consciousness.

but the thread that is woven thru the rejection of the state employing capital punishment because it is wrong to take a life is predicated on the importance of human life and this sensitivity is often absent when the issue of abortion is discussed.

i am abundantly aware of the necessity or true need to abort a fetus for health reasons, both physical and mental, but i find scant mention of exactly how one balances the moral relativism of accepting abortion but decrying capital punishment.

say what one wills about the catholic church and its plethora of bad craziness, but on life, they are consistent.

and that is the point. the right sees no consistency in the moral positions held by liberals, or at the least, liberals have not been able to articulate their internal consistencies in these matters.

[seabeyond]

11. just on the abortion and capital punishment

contridiction in no abortion but killing of human, so i personally see the contradicition on both sides. a greater contridiction, i often hear the right say no abortion except, rape, incest and mother health. for me selling out if you put any condition on it. if against abortion there is no consideration for any of the three. now my father says abortion allowed for rape and incest, what if the mom is dieing then she should, what if she has other children, then father raises. yet abortion ok with rape and incest. no way i say. let them carry it and put up for adoption they should simply buck up. yet the are into an eye for an eye and murder someone. now to finish that quote they all use, vengence is mine sayeth the lord.

anyway the morality in this, is abortion cannot be a law and someone deciding, this simply has to be one of those free will things. if god is willing to give us free will then we simply have to allow the same. we know better than god, here is an immorility to presume that

it is our place as a community and family and church to teach ouyr children greater responsibility than abortion. but it has to be available as much as no one likes it. and no one is pro abortion. pro choice but no one is pro abortion. oh goody an abortion, that is silliness

[Nikia]

12. It is good for setting up a dictatorship

If there is no objective morality, whatever is legal becomes moral and whatever is illegal because immoral. A dictatorship is free to make whatever laws it wants and people will not question it. That is how Nazism worked.

[MrPrax]

13. Maybe Liberals do, but Leftists?

I am not sure that 'Leftists' ARE accused of moral relativism?

Quite the opposite...they are accused of absolutism in their unshakeable 'ideological' beliefs.

I think your confusing 'hyprocrisy' (which is a quality each side can be accused of) or 'political strategies' like adopting political positions, especially during campaigns, that attempt to appeal to a wide cross section of the electorate.

"every single issue that's debated has two positions"?

Actually this is a misnomer, in most cases, there is simply one position and each 'political party's representative' attempts to take the side that will payoff in more votes, or they try to re-state the entire issue.

For example:
1) Terrorism - nobody is in favor of it and both 'liberals' and 'conservatives' want to get rid of it. The different sides have more to do with the different 'options' on HOW to get rid of it

2) Abortion - no one is in favour of it, the position is that it is a 'rights' issue' and this cuts across both conservative and liberal arguments