Ethics Gradient

[nameandnature]

lisekit has a discussion on novels, religion and relativism in religion. She says that, where religion is concerned, she doesn't like to say that anyone's views are more or less valuable than anyone else's. This set me thinking about the idea of relativism in general (which lisekit isn't advocating, lest I accuse her of it, as she mentions respect and tolerance as moral virtues).

I seem to have been brainwashed by Neal Stephenson into believing that strict relativism is undesirable because it does not work. If you cannot say one thing is better than another, the only sin left is hypocrisy (and, perhaps, intolerance :-) In a sense I'm a relativist, since I don't believe in absolutes imposed by a deity, but in another sense, that of refusing to say that one thing is better than another, I am not. In morality, say, I advocate things which I believe will lead to a society which I hope will be a good one for myself and people I care for. In religion, I would like to see well-reasoned disagreement between people who do think their viewpoint is the right one but are prepared to learn from others. Better that than the pop-culture spirituality which accepts everything that feels good (poor Greg Egan's disgust for that sort of thing in Silver Fire makes me think he's forgotten what G.K. Chesterton said happens to people who stop believing in God). Stephenson again:

The only real problem is that anyone who has no culture, other than this global monoculture, is completely screwed. Anyone who grows up watching TV, never sees any religion or philosophy, is raised in an atmosphere of moral relativism, learns about civics from watching bimbo eruptions on network TV news, and attends a university where postmodernists vie to outdo each other in demolishing traditional notions of truth and quality, is going to come out into the world as one pretty feckless human being. And--again--perhaps the goal of all this is to make us feckless so we won't nuke each other.

On the other hand, if you are raised within some specific culture, you end up with a basic set of tools that you can use to think about and understand the world. You might use those tools to reject the culture you were raised in, but at least you've got some tools.

In this country, the people who run things--who populate major law firms and corporate boards--understand all of this at some level. They pay lip service to multiculturalism and diversity and non-judgmentalness, but they don't raise their own children that way. I have highly educated, technically sophisticated friends who have moved to small towns in Iowa to live and raise their children, and there are Hasidic Jewish enclaves in New York where large numbers of kids are being brought up according to traditional beliefs. Any suburban community might be thought of as a place where people who hold certain (mostly implicit) beliefs go to live among others who think the same way.
-- In the Beginning was the Command Line

(The rest of Stephenson's essay is a huge digression on technology and culture, seen through the lens of the Windows/Unix clash: it's well worth reading if you've an hour to spare).

I suppose I'm back to morality as enlightened self-interest again: the reason these people are inculcating their children in their particular culture is because those cultures work, and they want their children to be happy, fulfilled and all that stuff. There are cultures which don't, and I'll gladly preach the superiority of those which work over those which don't, as it's in my own interest to do so.

Comments

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

The latter seeks to change ones belief not to exclude it or oppose it. There is no prohibition in wishing to change someones beliefs. Prohibition is imposed on someone whereas conversion is chosen.