We got into a big long debate about relativism in an earlier thread about libertarianism. Some libertarians defended themselves from the charge of moral relativism by noting their strong belief in natural rights, as well as their belief in the possibility of contingent moral judgments that are real, but may change in the future as new information becomes available and as circumstances change.
Relativism is not necessarily the same thing as nihilism. One can be a relativist and have certain beliefs one lives by and wishes others would live by too. The essence of relativism is a belief that there is no certain moral knowledge true across time and cultures. Thus, a relativist might be pretty sure that polygamy is wrong in our culture, but he wouldn’t feel confident saying it’s wrong from some tribe of savages that continue to practice it. Likewise, a relativist might say that while we now know and believe it’s wrong to have slaves, people in the past thought otherwise, and because they earnestly believed in the practice, what they did cannot be said to be wrong. These two varieties, cultural and historical relativism, are probably just two of many.
Though not true for all libertarians, many libertarian philosophies are founded on a kind of limited relativism. That is, while these libertarians say there are universal and certain principles of natural rights that we can discern from the nature of man and government, we cannot obtain certain moral knowledge in other areas, particularly in areas without direct effects on others. Thus, while we can know with certainty it’s wrong to rob and murder and rape, we cannot know with any certainty that it’s wrong to engage in polygamy, drunkenness, or usury. And, moreover, that even if there were some consensus on any of these areas and one were reasonably confident of his judgment, it would be wrong to give government power over those areas because a moral principle of liberty would be offended, which gives each of us the right to do things that are bad for us so long as we don’t harm anyone else. To quote James Markels from one of the earlier discussions, “The truth of the matter is that there is no ‘right’ answer here [regarding abortion], and libertarianism allows individuals to decide this issue for themselves. This makes people on the Left and the Right rather nervous — what’s this about a political ideology letting its proponents think for themselves?” And James said that “libertarianism only defines what is “bad” (violation of individual rights), and then leaves it up to individuals to find their own good.”
I think there is a major theoretical problem with this view, even taken on its own terms, which I’ve tried my best to articulate above. The premise behind this kind of libertarianism is, in part, a lack of confidence that government can set up channels through legislation in which we can avoid harming ourselves and others by engaging in self-destructive behavior. The premise behind such morals legislation is that we can have reasonably certain moral knowledge and that such legislation, while it deprives individuals of a certain amount of freedom, does not do them harm, because the conduct in question is objectively harmful to them. Now the whole basis of such a “natural law” view is that we have a nature, the essentials of which can be understood (and have long been understood) and that we can know with some confidence what is harmful to individuals, even when their free will might compel them to harm themselves. The same understanding of nature which allows us to understand these things also allows us to understand the nature of rights. Both are founded on moral philosophy and a view of human nature and what is in its interests. This view would not necessarily be modifiable in the future because the nature of human action, responsibility, and purpose is known through introspection and observation; whether we’re more or less closely related to some chimpanzee is irrelevant. (Or I at least cannot imagine any kind of information coming to light that would require any significant revision to our thinking about morality, ethics, the meaning of life, etc.) My big question then is, if we cannot achieve any certain moral knowledge in the areas of traditional morals legislation, on what basis can we obtain any certain knowledge in the areas of libertarian concern, namely the traditional protection of life, liberty, and property and the restriction of government to protecting individuals from one another’s use of force and fraud? This question should be considered seperate from whether or not we choose as a prudential matter to enact and enforce such legislation, because, like libertarians, I think most such legislation is ill-advised, tendentious, or useless as a matter of policy.
The best libertarian defense to me is that in a world with dissensus about morality, it’s better to establish a strong consensus on limited government, as even if I have certain moral knowledge, I would not want to establish a precedent whereby my neighbor, with whom I certainly disagree, could constrain me in the manner he sees fit. But this is a much narrower view than the one I believe I have understood that says it would be wrong to ever have such legislation because we can never be certain that any of the behavior encompassed therein is actually and knowably wrong.
Subscribe To This Feed
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears that your argument here is that if a political philosophy does not answer every possible moral question, then any other question it answers must be somehow suspect. Libertarianism does not answer the abortion question (because the concept of “human being” is not precisely defined and subject to individual interpretation), so therefore its determinations in other areas, such as the right to one’s own life, are questionable? Hogwash.
Moreover, libertarianism doesn’t claim that we cannot achieve “certain moral knowledge” in areas beyond natural rights. I’m sure libertarians would agree that adultery is bad, being verbally abusive is bad, and even that most drug use is bad. But just because we have “certain moral knowledge” doesn’t mean that the government should get involved. Libertarianism defines the appropriate area for government involvement and then allows private actors to sort the rest out. A libertarian society would definitely have “certain moral knowledge” for things outside of the government’s purview and would act to punish those who transgress, but only on a private individual-by-individual basis. You seem to be of the impression that without government enforcement there can be no morality. This is clearly wrong. The adulterer, the blowhard, and the junkie will be shunned. It’s punishment; it’s just not the kind of punishment that satisfies you, evidently.
It seems to me that the libertarian argument more often goes beyond the description that you have above, and indeed you yourself have gone beyond this view. Part of the argument in favor of libertarianism is a certain view of moral knowledge; namely that outside the arena of natural rights those judgments are likely to be wrong and create harm if enforced not only because they limit freedom but because they’re just as likely to be wrong as they are likely to be correct. Why else would it make sense to speak of “finding your own good” if there is an actual, apprehendable good in certain areas of traditional morality enforced by legislation.
And I concede a political philosophy need not answer every question, but the problem is that when that philosophy’s skepticism of moral knowledge is so over-arching–an earlier interlocutor said for instance that “morality is totally subjective,” and J.S. Mill among others said similar things–it seems difficult for that skepticism not also to swallow its areas of putative certainty as both areas are founded ultimately on the same philosophical types of foundations.
Even if not all libertarians would adopt the radical reltavist views that you have James, you yourself do not believe in the “certain moral knowledge” you claim that other libertarians believe in (though they’re few and far between, judging by the debating positions most of you seem to take here and elsewhere). You said in a comment in another post, ” I think there is a baseline of morality encapsulated in natural rights that must be enforced by government, and beyond that there is too much uncertainty.” This does not sound like someone who believes that moral teachings about thigns like drugs, homosexuality, when and whether to have an abortion, the age of consent, etc. are all that meaningful. So I call BS on you; I think you’re saying that you believe other libertarians believe in certain moral knowledge in these areas, even when you do not.
I also call you on using this stupid strawman that I think government should enforce all morality. You say, “You seem to be of the impression that without government enforcement there can be no morality. This is clearly wrong.” I’ve said no such things, and disclaimed as mcuh above in my last paragraph, though I think in certain traditional areas–areas of legislation common in the much more free era of the US founding–that such legislation can be useful in preserving social stability and preventing behavior that can be individually and socially destructive. What we’re discussing here is first principles, and it’s nearly impossible to do so with someone who won’t be honest about his views and the consequences of those views.
Yes, I believe that beyond natural rights there is too much uncertainty in morality . . . TO WARRANT GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT. That doesn’t mean that I am ambivalent about morality beyond natural rights. I was my law school’s Honor Council Chairman for two years because of my strong beliefs in legal and scholastic ethics. I refused to attend my father’s fourth wedding (no widowing involved) because in my view a fourth wedding conflicted too heavily with my beliefs concerning marriage. I am more than sure of my moral beliefs and I am prepared to back them up with action. But that doesn’t mean I think that my convictions warrant jail sentences for plagiarism or repeated divorces, or any other kind of government action.
I believe that you are taking my comments on abortion too far, as I think abortion is a special case. It’s a novel moral issue with unclear boundaries as to what constitutes a “human being.” I used it as an example, but that does not mean that I view all other moral questions in the same regard.
No, you may not believe that the government must enforce every moral issue, but you willingly ascribe to a political philosophy that (1) demands a political question to every moral issue, and (2) calls for government involvement whenever you can be convinced that such involvement in the moral issue would, overall, benefit “society.” Seems like there’s not much preventing government from eventually getting involved in every moral question, at least to me. You appear to lack a cogent basis for refusing government intervention — cost/benefit is not a matter of principle, after all; it’s a matter of accounting.
You can “call BS” on me all you want, but it seems obvious to me that you’re just frustrated that I don’t fit into the little “relativist” box that you have relied on to tar your ideological opponents.
“No, you may not believe that the government must enforce every moral issue, but you willingly ascribe to a political philosophy that (1) demands a political question to every moral issue, and (2) calls for government involvement whenever you can be convinced that such involvement in the moral issue would, overall, benefit “society.”"
This is a false description of the political philosophy to which I subscribe. I don’t want to speak for Roach, but my guess is he would agree.
I’ll just say this. Politics and morality are highly intertwined. Politics is concerned both with ensuring the basic structures necessary for men to pursue happiness and wealth, but also, in spite of itself, it sets the moral tone for society, it crafts moral instincts, it creates channels in which people form proper habits (or not), etc. In other words, statecraft can make us good or bad and it will do so whether it tries to or not, indeed, if it ignores this phenomenon we’re more likely to live degraded lives which we’re unable to pull ourselves out from because of our long habituation in vice and license. Think of the degrading impact of socialism in Russia or anarchy in Somalia, if one is to look at either extreme.
I agree with you that I do not have a handy-dandy chart or some other mechanistic way to offer the possibility of abuse of government power, but neither do you or anyone else. At every stage of political life, individual character is the weak link of limited government whether we’re talking about judges, cops on the beat or the witness stand, high officials deciding on appointments, etc. Even a principled concept of how government should act or not act cannot avoid this issue. I think one mark of all rationalist and liberal political ideologies is the understandable quest to find a way out of this threat. But there is no easy way. We are obliged to struggle as best we can to balance liberty and order, division and unity, change and stasis, etc. We are obliged inasmuch as possible to select men of character and integrity for public office and other governmental positions of trust.
This is the political problem and it can only be approached with trembling and a thorough understanding of man and history to be done well. No shortcut is available, whether from the libertarian side of things–suggesting that all but highly limited exercises in government power are ever appropriate as a solution–nor from the right, where the attempt to frame certain “fail safe” institutions like a poll tax, a precise constitution, a gold standard or other similar precommitment measures will not necesarily stem the tide of decline, disorder, and related evils.
Sufficient for me! It’s a social contract! Signing….
“The best libertarian defense to me is that in a world with dissensus about morality, it’s better to establish a strong consensus on limited government, as even if I have certain moral knowledge, I would not want to establish a precedent whereby my neighbor, with whom I certainly disagree, could constrain me in the manner he sees fit. “
“The essence of relativism is a belief that there is no certain moral knowledge true across time and cultures. Thus, a relativist might be pretty sure that polygamy is wrong in our culture, but he wouldn’t feel confident saying it’s wrong from some tribe of savages that continue to practice it.”
On a very related issue, does this make Moses or God exactly this kind of relativist (Mark 10: 2 ff):
“Some Pharisees came to him and tried to trap him. “Tell us,” they asked, “does our Law allow a man to divorce his wife?” 3 Jesus answered with a question, “What law did Moses give you?” 4 Their answer was, “Moses gave permission for a man to write a divorce notice and send his wife away.” 5 Jesus said to them, “Moses wrote this law for you because you are so hard to teach. 6 But in the beginning, at the time of creation, ‘God made them male and female,’ as the scripture says. 7 ‘And for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and unite with his wife, 8 and the two will become one.’ So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Man must not separate, then, what God has joined together.” 10 When they went back into the house, the disciples asked Jesus about this matter. 11 He said to them, “A man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against his wife. 12 In the same way, a woman who divorces her husband and marries another man commits adultery.”
Although I am not entirely a libertarian, my undersatnding of libertarian philosophy is as follows:
Initiating force against others (i.e. the use of force against someome who is not using force against you or threatening to do so) is always wrong.
Moral relativism is not needed to be a ibertarian; one only has to believe that it is wrong to enforce morality beyond natural rights, not that no such morality exists.
As some of the commentators have also posted, the issue isn’t necessarily that there is moral uncertainty, but that even with an objective morality, there is moral disagreement between people, and the chances of someone with incorrect morality (i.e. they believe other than the objectively correct way) being enforced are too great, and a bigger problem than that of a correct morality not being enforced.
Well, I’ve been saying that now for weeks, Glaivester. And yet the “relativist” mantra plodded on.
The Bible passage is interesting. I’ll just say that it’s not relativist to come up with second-best ways to trod a moral path for those who are degraded, hard-headed, or otherwise of keeping the highest path.
Mr. Roach, while you and I will certainly agree that the current libertarian party is filled with left-wing libertarians (relativist and libertines), as you well know, many of us do indeed believe that there is certain moral knowledge true across time and cultures.
However, given that the party is primarily filled with left-wing libertarians, we right-wing libertarians disassociate ourselves from the party. Indeed, at least in my case I refer to myself as a classical liberal while others know me as Conservatarian.
Mr. Markels’ references to abortion as a “novel moral issue” and a “special case” exemplify the problem I have with libertarians. Mr. Markels, if you are unwilling or unable to call premeditated murder, murder, why should we believe you are willing to enforce any morality, whether through government action or social norms. Despite your protests to the contrary, it appears evident, that you like all left-wing libertarians, will not enforce morality. Your view of a libertarian society allows for the enforcement of morality “only on a private individual-by-individual basis.”
Why should group boycotts, group judgments, and the judgments of social institutions not be allowed as a tool by which to control those who transgress? The answer I believe is that within every left-wing libertarian there is a fear not just of government, but of people and all of their institutions. Underlying left-wing libertarians’ views is an absolute belief in unrestrained freedom. In other words, left-wing libertarians do not ascribe to a philosophy concerning the proper limits of state action, but rather the absolute goodness of freedom. Left-wing libertarians are libertines.
It is this fear of social institutions and the dominance of the party by libertines, which not only drives me away from the party, but which inevitably makes the party a completely ineffective and laughable group. While I should expect the left to attack the institutions and traditions which are critical to human success (the church, marriage, etc), attacks from libertarians are entirely unwarranted. While Libertarian philosophy informs us as to the proper limits of state action, that philosophy was not intended to be, nor should it be extended to prescribe non-governmental action.
“Mr. Markels, if you are unwilling or unable to call premeditated murder, murder, why should we believe you are willing to enforce any morality, whether through government action or social norms.”
The problem with this statement is that it ASSUMES that which is not universally agreed upon — that a fetus is a human being. Certainly we all agree that the death of a sperm is not murder, nor the death of an egg. How about a zygote? You might assume that a zygote qualifies as a human being deserving of rights, but I (and most others) would disagree. From the other direction, everyone would agree that a killing a newborn baby would be murder. How about a baby that is one minute away from being born? Some would say no, that’s not murder, while I (and I believe most people in general) would disagree. It is murder to premeditatively kill a human being, but the definition of “human being” is not absolutely precise when dealing with prenatal life. That a libertarian might have a definition of “human being” that is different from yours does not indicate an unwillingness to enforce social norms or to make personal moral choices.
I have no problem with people getting together on their own to promote morality. I’ve also been particularly tolerant of religion in the public sphere (consider http://www.affbrainwash.com/archives/007491.php), much to the consternation of some atheistic libertarians. However, I do not support the government enforcement of such moral positions. Churches are fine by me, I just don’t want codification of religious doctrine or government money going to the churches. While some libertarians may indeed be skeptical of any group-based efforts, I’m not one of them.
Roach: “The Bible passage is interesting. I’ll just say that it’s not relativist to come up with second-best ways to trod a moral path for those who are degraded, hard-headed, or otherwise of keeping the highest path.”
Ah, the sound of someone furiously side-stepping to no avail.
So it’s not relativist to dictate a moral path based on the qualities of the actor? Hmmm…morality relative to ability is now “not relativist?” Sounds pretty relativist to me, since morality in such a system is relative to the individual in question.