And the moral of THAT is...

[vovat]

I went to the car dealer today for a recall (something to do with the trunk latch, I think), and ended up getting my state inspection done as well. My car passed, so that's good. After that, I went grocery shopping, and found out that the grocery store is apparently under new ownership.

I'm not sure my allergy medicine is working all that well. I took a pill last night (I'm only supposed to take one per day), and I was still sneezing quite a bit while on my way back from the car dealer. According to the radio news, though, the pollen count is particularly high today, so that might have something to do with it. My best medicine seems to be staying indoors.

And now for the philosophical portion of this entry. I've been thinking a bit recently about morality. For some time, I've considered myself a moral relativist, but now I'm not totally sure. Nobody really seems to agree on what relativism actually entails. The dictionary.com definition says that it's the theory "that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them." People arguing against relativism inevitably use the definition that it means every person can define his or her own morality, because that's easy to argue against. ("What if somebody decided it was okay to kill people indiscriminately? A relativist couldn't say they were wrong!") If morals are SOCIETALLY defined, that's somewhat different, and I think it's true to an extent. You can still find problems with this philosophy ("What if a society decided it was their moral duty to wipe out all other societies?"), but it's harder.

While I don't know whether I'm a relativist, I'm pretty sure I'm not an absolutist. I don't think I have to be either one or the other, regardless of what the dualists might say. Absolutism necessitates that there's some source from which all morality derives (be it a deity, the collective unconscious, the universe itself, or whatever), and I don't know that I can buy that. I suppose I hold that some moral standards are more or less universal, but I'm not really comfortable saying they're "absolute." Besides, how far do absolutists generally go? Should the situation never be considered, and everything determined by general rules? I don't know that this is really the case for anyone. Even the most hardcore absolutist will generally make exceptions. I mean, look at the people who insist they're always in favor of life, and then support war. Is it suddenly okay to kill people because the government says it is? Doesn't that mean the government transcends and defines morality, which shouldn't be the case if there are absolute moral standards? Obviously an exception is being made here. Whether it's a reasonable exception isn't something I'm going to get into here. My point is that using sweeping generalizations to define morality tends not to work out so well.

I think another problem with some (but by no means all) absolutists is that, not only do they think there are absolute moral standards, but they insist that they know exactly what they are. Pretty arrogant, if you ask me. Philosophers, governments, religious leaders, courts, and others have been arguing these matters for centuries, and some busybody suddenly decides he knows what's best for everybody?

I guess there are some rules that are more or less absolute. I think everyone should try to cause as little harm as possible, and that your right to swing your fist ends at the next person's nose. These are hardly novel ideas, but I think they should apply to everyone. There's certainly some ambiguity in them, though. Does it cause undue harm to step on an ant when you could avoid doing so? I don't believe so, but a Jainist would. Does calling another person by a racial ephithet violate their rights? You could argue that it's just a word, but also that there are certain words that shouldn't be said, because of the emotional pain they can cause. It definitely requires some thought. Really, I think thought is the most important thing here. People should think about their moral positions, and be able to defend them. This is especially true when they're trying to enforce them on other people. "We've always done things this way" isn't much of a defense, yet it seems to be all some people have. Some morals are probably going to vary from person to person, while others might be good rules for all of humanity. The important thing is that people think about them, and have arguments for them that make sense.

As simple as that sounds, though, I can't resist playing devil's advocate against myself, and asking who decides what makes sense. Aren't logic and reasoning as much human institutions as morality? I'm not sure I can come up with a good answer for that. I guess part of it is just common sense, but even that is a somewhat ambiguous term.

Comments

[colleenanne.livejournal.com]

Try taking the allergy medicine (if you're still taking generic Claritin) in the morning. I find it's more active when you first take it. And if I try to take it at night, I sleep very poorly.

That said, I'm having serious allergy issues too (or it's a cold. I'm not sure) but it sucks.