![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
There Are No Absolutes
Science is amoral. It has to be in order to progress. It can’t be constrained by anything beyond what it itself can prove through observation, experimentation and duplication.
Government, on the other hand, seems to be completely pragmatic. It only does what works. If it doesn’t do what works, it falls out of power. What works is empirically provable by the fact that said government hasn’t fallen. That seems to be the only true criteria for success in government: do not fall. In order not to fall though, governments will adopt utilitarian philosophies, emphasizing the greatest good for the greatest number. But this is not because government as an entity cares about people. Like science, it is amoral It only cares about falling.
Science then seems to be amorally progressive. If it does not develop beyond its current state, it is a failure. Government seems to be amorally pragmatic. If it does not survive then it is a failure. These are the only absolutes either really seems to recognize. It only makes sense then that the two would be in bed together, creating a society which if it does not expand and survive, then it is a failure. We call this combination of impulses “Empire.” (We can also call it cancer)
This marriage seems to be at the root of moral relativism, the belief that “moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references.” Or, put another way, morality is only important in relation to how it impedes or advances scientific progress or pragmatic government survival.
A writer on a philosophy forum really nails this way of thinking down, but he calls it “moral realism” instead of “moral relativism.” Seems to me to be a semantic game to describe the same thing in more scientific-sounding terms though. See for yourself:
The problem with the term ‘absolutism’ are the connotations of totalitarianism and non-revisability. Moral realism on the other hand, is the realism of scientific realism.
What is real is what science says is real. Granted, what was once considered real no longer is, and what is considered real now may not be in the future. Nevertheless, scientific method, however amorphous or fallible, remains the best way to make sense of experience, because of the systematic link between theory and observation.
Moral theory, according to moral realism, is as revisable as scientific theory. Moral absolutism would seem to imply that a committed absolutist would be at the end of ethics and morality—his morality would be complete and not in need of revision. Hence, the short slip into totalitarianism.
Given that the world is as science says it is, whence morality and ethics? The solution, according to moral realism, is to model the moral predicates of right and wrong after the scientific predicates of true and false.
Compare this very pro-science viewpoint to that of R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Ph.D., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary [via]:
Moreover, evolutionary theory stands at the base of moral relativism and the rejection of traditional morality. If human beings are not made in the image of God, and if the entire cosmos is nothing more than a freakish accident, morality is nothing but a mirage, and human beings — cosmic accidents that we are — are free to negotiate whatever moral arrangement seems best to us at any given time. Human life has no inherent dignity, morality has no objective basis, and we are alone in the universe to eat, drink and be merry before our bones join the fossil record and we pass from existence.
Humanism, meanwhile, true to the Metaphysical stage of society envisioned by Auguste Comte (founder of sociology) would most likely say that we can create a rationally-based morality which flows naturally out of the recognition of universal human rights. But in such a system, what are human rights themselves based on? It is a metaphysical assertion with no empirically provable foundation, and which science’s “moral realism” and governmental pragmatism can and will sweep aside the second that it becomes an impediment to progress or survival (which is exactly my criticism of the technocratic ideal as well).
And so it’s with great difficulty that I finally come to realize that I am in agreement with Christian fundamentalists who proclaim that moral relativism, scientific progressivism and humanism really are dangerous, really do represent slippery slopes into a completely amoral, unregulated and quite possibly inhuman society. It goes against every bone of my liberal background to think such things or to agree with people who seem to favor a return to Biblical Law. I don’t agree with the solutions which they advocate, but it turns out more and more that I agree with the problems which they have identified. The sad thing seems to be that noone has been able to disentangle any of these moral issues from Christian political agendas, or to offer any creative alternative solution to a Reconstructionist Theocracy. But they seem to be the only ones even thinking that there is a problem here, and they also seem to have a strong understanding of where these problems come from in the story-systems of our modern society:
Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism. So it was in the 1920s and still today that the popular interpreter of Einstein’s work finds himself saying “All things are relative” and thinks that he is voicing a scientific discovery. This notion of “all things relative” moved from the laboratory into the public domain, creating an era in which all absolutes disappeared. Relativism has become the prevailing spirit of thought and action in our modern culture, but that is just half the equation.
The other half is provided by Darwin, who left us with the teaching that all of life arose by accident. If that is true, the human race has no unifying meaning or purpose. And if we have no unified meaning, then we have no inherent duty, obligations or responsibility. Worse, we have no inherent value except that which is assigned by the ever-changing opinions of a fickle society.
I don’t believe you need to be a Fundamentalist Christian to understand that there really is something to what is being said here. Things really are changing. Values really are being eroded in the name of progress and survival. Is the solution to adopt a fixed stance, a rallying point to fight and die around, as the Christians seem to be doing, or is there some other way out of this mess? Is there such a thing as simple human virtue which can withstand the onslaught of both science and government teamed up against it? If there are no absolutes, then what is there?
- “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.”
- Good & Evil: Absolutes?
- Mind Beside Itself
- reeking of Havoc
- Everything Is Under Control
- Prev: Is Science Cancer?
- Next: Cultivation
August 20th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
I meant to also point out that where the author I quoted above suggests that moral absolutism can lead to totalitarianism, my argument is that opposite, moral relativism (or “realism” in his language) can and will do the same thing. Maybe the problem in this way of thinking is suggesting that either sense of morality “leads to” or causes totalitarianism. It may simply be that these things cluster together as part of a greater “memeplex” or that there is no correlation at all…
This is also a really good quote from Ran Prieur on the subject of moral relativism from a while back:
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005/07/22/moral-relativism/
See also this which touches on some similar themes
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/07/28/the-freedom-of-materialism/
August 20th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
So far this is really awesome and comes to some of the same conclusions as I have come to here:
Technology Without Ends: A Critique of Technocracy as a Threat to Being
August 20th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
Very interesting. The ironic thing is that those Christian fundamentalists who you agree with on this probably believe that moral relativism comes from rebellion against Empire. This seems to be at the root of a lot of conservative thought — rebelling against the Empire throws you into a moral-relativist pit — and it is pretty much the opposite, in a way, of what you’re saying — that the Empire itself endorses moral relativism.
Of course, this just brings up the distinction between a static, conservative “status quo” and an expansionary, modernist Empire (some commentators have claimed capitalism is so successful as a status quo because it actually can change to keep from dying).
Also, I have a question: Do you distinguish moral relativism from situational ethics?
August 20th, 2006 at 11:53 pm
I have to add: a Christian fundamentalist might think of him- or herself as being in rebellion against an evil Empire that is morally relativist, but the fundamentalist’s idea of the evil relativist Empire is probably a bit different from the technocracy that you oppose.
Isn’t it funny how people so often think of the status quo as being ideologically the opposite of whatever they themselves believe ideologically? So many of us believe in the “evil Empire”, but liberal think it is conservative and conservatives think it is liberal. Weird, huh? Of course, the people whom all the rebels need to watch out for are those who believe the status quo does agree with them ideologically.
August 20th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
Not sure what you mean by that… Do you?
I’ve never really seen that point made anywhere… But I do think that how Fundamentalists see themselves and the world has been cleverly hijacked and modified out of its true ideological core.
August 20th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics
Not sure what I think about this exactly… but it’s something I have been considering without knowing specifically what to call it, I think.
August 21st, 2006 at 11:24 am
There is only one absolute, the Absolute One, the alpha and omega, which cannot be put into any words or pictures. The modern fundamentalist Christian movement is a reaction against the severing of the connection to the Absolute by scientism, but fundies only mimic the empty forms of religion, they are just as unconnected to the vertical dimension as the scientists.
This can be seen in the development of Creationism (utterly modern) as a reaction to evolutionism. If one wonders what sort of paradigm could be an alternative to these two conflicting narratives, this just shows how deeply the disconnect runs. But, for instance, one could take very seriously the “intelligent falling” idea, that G-D intervenes in every single thing that has ever happened; this is actually much closer to the traditional conception of Creation than creationist lies.
When the alchemists talk about Nature with a big ‘N’, they are referring to the action of the one thing. Nature is G-D’s mode of action. Nature moves ALL things, including our own brains which formulate these theories.
August 21st, 2006 at 11:01 pm
prunes, that`s bang on baby………..but dogmatists can`t stand not needing rules about rules, ad infinitum. it`s how they keep themselves warm at night………and of course perpetuate the divisiveness.
watching the meaning of life by monty python a few times brings it all into focus.
August 22nd, 2006 at 12:35 am
What has been said above about Christian fundamentalism applies even more, I think, to Muslim fundamentalism, or just plain ordinary Islam. I don’t speak as a Muslim myself, but I see an extraordinary spectrum in both religions which ranges from the gentle and admirable instinct to live in love and peace, despite corrupted outside influences, to a super-amibitious, super-corrupted desire to reshape the world whether it wills or no.
I understand less about fundamentalist Christianity, because it is almost underground as a force in this secular country (England). But I know that Islam has shifted over the centuries from one of the most liberal, tolerant and inclusive religions, in which learning and the arts flourished, into something which in parts has now sharpened to an agressive point. I ask myself what has changed and find two things: (1) poverty & oppression - I’m counting them as one thing - and (2) revulsion at the ugly power of “the West” - the dominance, the usury, the female-flesh-flaunting, the alcohol & drugs, the lack of respect for others’ culture etc etc.
The process towards activism parallels closely the animal rights activists.
Things which are repellent to the devout Muslim are generally things to which the Western citizen has become inured through constant bombardment of propaganda. If the devout young Muslim were not tempted by these things he would not be so motivated to destroy them.
August 23rd, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Again you’ve conflated science with some particular ideal that involves science. Science does not concern itself with progress. It doesn’t concern itself with anything except the hypotheses people submit to it for testing. As for individual scientists, they pursue various individual goals. Many prefer some version of political progress or change that works directly against government, with its desire for stasis and self-preservation.
As for your closing questions, I think I tried to address them here. I strongly doubt you have a better answer. And religion clearly does not have a better answer, whatever Mohler may think.
Incidentally, if you think scientific thought can provide no resistance to the rulers, you may want to remind yourself how rulers think back in the real world. They tend to insist on unscientific claims, because otherwise their instincts would tell them not to kill so many people.