NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/talk/philosop/misc/1434

Text File | 1992-07-21 | 5.6 KB | 104 lines

Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!convex!convex!cash
From: [e-mail] (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Morality and "cultural relativism"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (news access account)
Nntp-Posting-Host: zeppelin.convex.com
Organization: The Instrumentality
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:55:23 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.
Lines: 88

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel R. Goupil) writes:
>
>In article, [e-mail] (Peter Cash) reponds:
...
>!That's irrelevant to the question at issue (which is "Should morality be
>!taught in schools?"). Wright invites this mistake by suggesting that "all
>!humans share common principles..."; in fact, whether or not all humans
>!share such principles is also irrelevant to the point. What is relevant is
>!only whether _our_ society shares a common morality. The answer is, of
>!course, that it does--no society can continue to exist without such a
>!common morality. And it is, of course, the responsibility of parents and of
>!the schools to provide a moral education for children.
>
>I agree to some extent that some form of common morality exists within
>society, but 'the world' is also a society.  I point this out because in
>the Persian Gulf conflict an example was made of what happens when one side
>has power and one doesn't (Iraq and Kuwait).  Isn't this instance an example
>of 'sandbox morality'? (no pun intended)  If leaders in Iraq acted immorally,
>and were supported by the people, doesn't this mean that a form of common
>morality does not exist?  I realize that in each society there are fringe
>individuals who defy the common morality and they are the minority, but
>isn't this just an example that common morality isn't as common as we would
>like to think?

I was arguing that the existence of moral disagreements in the world
doesn't preclude teaching moral behavior to children--some moral
disagreement between individuals doesn't imply that there is not
substantial agreement about these things on a social scale. I'm not
absolutely certain why you think that pointing to immoral behavior on the
part of nations (if we grant that the Iraqi seizure of Kuwait was immoral)
somehow vitiates my point. Remember, I was willing to grant that there will
be moral disagreements even between individuals of the same society; it
should not surprise us if different nations take different views on what is
a "morally correct" foreign policy.

It _is_ interesting that nations always try to provide a moral
justification for everything they do. I'm sure Saddam Hussein had a
perfectly good story about why taking over Kuwait was the right thing to
do; even Hitler blamed the invasion of Poland on a fabricated Polish
incursion into Germany. Such prevarication certainly justifies a measure of
cynicism about international politics; however, it also demonstrates that
everyone thinks moral values have a place in the relations between nations.
After all, if it weren't so, why bother providing a moral justification?

...

>I agree here....there has to be some type of common respect (morality)
>taught, but not everyone can agree on what that should be.  Example:
>not all cultures agree with sharing, so is this a common moral value?  I
>don't see it that way.

I suppose you can find some bizarre culture where selfishness is a virtue.
(Don't tell the Objectivists--they'll all want to migrate there and spoil
the place.) But what follows from this? That all moral judgments are void?
That we can't teach kids to share? Surely not.
...
>I don't think that anyone is 'paralyzed' unless the whole US government is
>stuck in super glue because of disagreements over prayer in school.  It is
>possible that we should just have a national referendum to determine whether
>everyone agrees with prayer in school and tell the minority to go to hell
>(not literally). Doesn't this form a basis for discrimination....majority
>power and suppression of the minority....or is this ok?  Was it ok when
>many of our founding fathers and the citizens of that time thought slavery
>was acceptable?  I wouldn't go out on a limb to justify that....

There's no necessary connection between teaching kids morality and teaching
them religion--to my mind, the two are quite distinct. I was not talking
about prayer in schools. (If you want to know what I think about that,
though, I'll tell you: get rid of public schools, and initiate a good
voucher system. Then everybody can use public funds to send their kids to
any school the parents want, and the issue disappears nicely.)
...
>!Oh sure--let's appoint Jeffrey Dahmer to a special consultantcy in moral
>!education--we must make sure that his viewpoint is represented.

>I realize that this statement was to make a point, but it may have some
>validity....are we going to tell the minority that they have no say in matters
>and treat them as such?  (I wouldn't put Jeffrey Dahmer anywhere but where
>he has 'earned' the right to be, but I wouldn't give him anymore voice than
>anyone else either).

Sadistic murderers are a "minority" and have a right to be heard? Nah, you
can't mean it.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |[e-mail]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~