So there's already a couple of threads on this as far as I know, one is
apparent here and the other was from like half a year ago and I wanted to start a fresh thread on this topic.
My question is- which is superior over the other? Moral relativism or absolutism?
More importantly, why?
I'm taking an extremely dumbed-down phil. course and they handed us this article on moral relativism and absolutism, here is an excerpt:
Pretext:
Quote:
|
Suppose a woman in Mali (in West Africa) named Mrs. Diarra helps circumcise her 3-month-old baby daughter. Her moral principle is that she should help her daughter abstain from sexual intercourse until marriage, and even then reaize it is not a source of pleasure. In addition, imagine that a Frenchwoman named Mrs. Robert learns of the operation. Mrs. Robert is a moral relativist, so she says Diarra did the right thing, for Diarra, although it would not be right for Robert. Robert's conscience tells her that she should not mutilate her daughter's genitals, with or without anesthesia, no matter what the traditions are. So Robert's view is that the very same action -- female circumcision -- was morally right for the woman in Mali, but would be morally wrong for herself in France. In fact, Diarra was admirable for doing what she believed was right. But the idea of doing the same thing to her own daughter she feels is repugnant and horrifying. She has different values and moral standards.
|
Dillema:
Quote:
|
“Imagine (hypothetically) that Mrs. Diarra was baby-sitting for Mrs. Robert, the French relativist, and she decided to circumcise Mrs. Robert’s daughter, “for her own good.” (In African countries friends and family, not only the child’s mothers, often perform the operation.) What would the relativist say about that?”
|
My own personal response to this dillema:
Quote:
What do we call the act of imposing what we believe to be morally right on others? Moral absolutism. By circumcising Mrs. Robert’s daughter, Mrs. Diarra is imposing what she believes to be right onto Mrs. Robert. Here it is absolutism that creates the conflict, not relativism. Had Mrs. Diarra been a sensible moral relativist this conflict would not have taken place.
The question here is what the definitive jurisdiction of someone with a certain set of moral beliefs is over certain matters.
|
The answer to the question I end my response with, I do not know.
Another excerpt from the article:
Quote:
|
“Therefore in this case, the relativist must say female circumcision is right and wrong at the same the same time. Mrs. Diarra did something that was right and wrong. But that statement makes no sense. It is like saying someone is, and is not, pregnant, or the entire line is straight and also curved.”
|
Again, my personal response:
Quote:
Which begs the question- what is right and wrong to begin with? A straight line and a curved line are clear-cut but right and wrong is open to interpretation. Pregnancy is the state of carrying developing offspring within your body, and it is not open to interpretation. You cannot be pregnant and not pregnant at the same time. But yes, you can be wrong and right based on different sets of morality.
The question that must be asked is what the function of morality is, why we refrain from doing certain things because they are “immoral”. After that has been defined you can then decide if relativism or absolutism is more correct over the other.
|
I think I could argue endlessly for both cases if I felt like it, but it's 2:30 am and even though I'm not tired I want to go to sleep, so I will leave the rest to you.