Caveat: Any examples that follow are my own, and based on my own version of what I consider to be fairly standard American morals.
Quote:
Originally posted by wilbjammin
If individuals can operate on their own in the macro-scale, then I'm failing to understand the difference between the micro-scale and the macro-scale.
|
Definition by example (inexact, but perhaps better than my normal nattering wordiness):
Macro-scale: I find the Caste System in India to be unjust by my standards. However, it is not my culture, thus while I may question it via Western morality, I am not truly equipped to judge it. It is, after all, what works for them.
Micro-scale: The murders done by the Manson Family are morally repugnant to me, but as I am not a member of the Family, I am not truly equipped to judge it. It is, after all, what works for them.
Quote:
|
It all sounds rather Hegelian to me, as though we're on a path then to a perfectable history in that the moralities that emerge in the end are strongest for humankind because they've won out. As a sort of morality-Darwinism:
|
I would agree, in essence. I have trouble with the word "perfectable" as I am not of the opinion that anything can be truly perfected, but I can certainly agree with the idea that morality evolves. As to Darwinian overtones, they are natural when one speaks of evolution.
Quote:
|
I'm having great difficulty with this concept because of how abstract the individual becomes. People fighting against some moral issue and wanting change are "wallowing in immorality" until they create a significant macro-change and then they are normal agents of a non-static morality system? I find that our society has confusing and contradictory morals as well (individualism and consumerism vs. social security and charity). I guess you'd say that it is irrevelant how those work against each other and with each other, because as we can see on a macro-level how these work relatively to other cultures.
|
Again, people fighting for change, however successful or not, are not necessarily wallowing in immorality. They are working on the macro-scale (I am assuming that you are speaking of people that are honestly working to accomplish change in the face of injustice). The micro-scale deals with, in essence, individuals making strictly individual choices.
You are correct, to an extent, in that I think your examples are irrelevant, but for a couple of reasons. I feel that they do not conflict, nor am I confused by them particularly, but I do agree with your mention that they should be examined primarily in relation to other cultures.
Quote:
|
But, if individuals can affect change within a macro-culture by standing up against mores and creating a consciousness shift, then moral relativism by individuals within a culture isn't a sign of deficiency, but rather, is totally natural and healthy regardless of what the change is (esp. given that the inherent relative worth of a macro-level morality is null). The Civil Rights movement started off very small and with a lot of resistance with outright claims of injustice and immorality... the people involved at the beginning went through a lot of troubling times, even against people within their own culture (imagine going through lunch lines being told "how dare you" by a fellow black woman whose rights you are trying to help expand). Change is caused by individuals; individuals choose for themselves what is "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "bad" (or "evil). The only downside to this is that crimes (as socially defined) happen, ultimate safety is never reached, and the threat of reverting to the state of nature remains constant, always, everywhere in the world.
|
Again, you mistake my comment on "moral relativism on the micro-scale" with "moral relativism practiced by individuals". It is not the same. It is closer to "moral relativism between individuals". In other words, I have no real issue with comparing my morality to society's, and then making a my decision. I take issue with comparing my morality to another individual, and then making my decisions.
You are championing individual choice. I am ignoring individual choice as it is irrelevant to the initial thrust of my argument - making plain the difference between macro and micro-scale moral relativism.
Quote:
|
What is right for one culture can be wrong for another, and wars break out over it (for instance, the practice of expansionism, colonialism, religious differences, etc). What is right for one individual can be wrong for another, and conflict can break out over it within a culture or between cultures. There are, indeed, pressures put upon people to abide by whatever Social Contract they're under, and that pressure creates cognitive dissonance when someone can't agree to something that everyone else says they're supposed to. When I see people committing "crimes" against moral standards in either direction (things I agree with or disagree with) I'm understanding of it, I expect it to happen more than just occassionally. When this creates misanthropes, I find it perfectly understandable and it doesn't bother me. This may threaten a Hobbesian ideal of the fundamental goal of a governed society to provide safety, but safety is truly illusory. And for all of my cognitive energy, I can't find order and protection to be a universal ideal for everyone, and, as such, I can't agree with moral relativism to be a sign of deficiency when present between individuals .
|
Well, I'm glad you can be so laissez faire about it, but I have property values to worry about =)
Quote:
|
Moral relativism between individuals is the key towards diversity and making existence meaningful on a personal level. I do understand the limitations of freedom of thinking on the macro-level, because the culture we live in provides us with context... but from that context we still choose, and agree or disagree, and are willing or unwilling to act against the "system". Finding values for oneself is a journey we all make... either in deference and submission or in resistance and rebellion. The only thing that I can imagine that prevents moral relativism for being true and good for individuals is a fear that disorder and violence will dominate the culture.
|
Diversity is necessary? I've honestly yet to see any real positives to the modern version of diversity. Seems to me to be creating distance between various groups instead of bridging it.
There is a vast gulf of difference between morals and values, though I don't want to devolve into argument by definition either, so I'll not make this a point in the overall discourse.
To return to the core subject, moral relativism is not key in any way towards constructing a meaningful life. I can have a perfectly meaningful life and not give a toss about anyone else's morality, thus breaking myself from the moral relativism loop. Moral relativism is useful in not overreacting to exposure to alternative morality. That's pretty much the extent of its' inherent use on a personal level. If one extends moral relativism to justification for ignoring or modifying one's own morals (ie everything chooses their own morality), thus begins the Path of Moral Convenience. The natural end of such a movement becoming generalized over a culture is, as you say, disorder and violence coming to dominate the culture.
Quote:
|
What do you think of people who break rules they disagree with not to create change, but just because they don't agree with those rules?
|
Morally deficient. Also asking for societal or legal penalties.
Quote:
|
Do you desire order and a functioning society?
|
Obviously. Society, by definition, is order at least at some level. Pure anarchy does not produce "society" as the very definition of the word implies some sort of communal identity and effort to live in a functional healthy way with those also in your society.
Quote:
|
What if the systems of justice in your society fail you? What is your next recourse?
|
Institute change on the macro-scale. MLK is a perfect example of this.
Quote:
|
Is it possible for anyone to opt-out of a society they are born in if they do not like the Social Contract system and moral structure of their culture without moving into away and into another system?
|
No. If one decides to opt out without distancing onesself physically, there is a very high likelihood that said individual will still continue to reap the benefits of the society they are ostensibly choosing to opt out of. As such, Social Contract still applies. Even if they make every effort to not utilize the benefits of membership, there are still inherent, subtle boons garnered by mere proximity, such as safety and stability, defense, passive property rights, etc. To truly opt out, one must completely dissassociate onesself via expatriation or exile. To do else is to simply violate the contract and enjoy the good without making the appropriate sacrifices.
Quote:
|
What happens when something happens that you don't like and there are no social institutions to help you obtain justice? Would you ever violate the Social Contract for a sense of personal justice?
|
Depends. I may have a fairly hard-line moral stance, at least in discussions like these, but there is a time to recall that we are fallible humans, and as prone to emotion as everyone else. More importantly, there is another vast gulf of difference between society's morals and it's legal system. Law is not moral. It is related to morality, and often based off of morality, but they are not the same. While it is legal to execute a man for commision of capital crimes, it is difficult to argue that it is moral to kill a person who is not an immediate threat (I am NOT arguing against the death penalty, merely using it as an example).
Quote:
|
And what exactly is the deficiency you speak of? What makes it deficient?
|
Moral deficiency. If someone fails purposefully to follow society's morals, they are, in the macro-scale's viewpoint, morally deficient.
I don't necessarily consider Western morality to be "right". I am, after all, arguing the case for moral relativism on the macro-scale. I am merely saying that it is "right" for the culture that spawned it.