Article 24 of 40

Subject:      Re: Limitations of Lewis' apologetics- Morality
From:         Sam Dodsworth <sam@aristos.demon.co.uk>
Date:         1997/01/30
Message-Id:   <qWeMpBA$iK8yEw0k@aristos.demon.co.uk>
Distribution: world
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk
References:   <5carbl$3i4@btc1.up.net> <5cbodr$ua@netnews.upenn.edu>
Organization: Annexia Free Press
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:   alt.books.cs-Lewis



In article <5clo58$3bs@btc1.up.net>, Keith Schooley <kschool@up.net>
writes
>
>Which doesn't answer the question:  if I, a major league baseball 
>player, spit in your face, as an American League umpire, is it a 
>moral act, if I've chosen a religion and morality (or made one 
>up) that says it is?
>
        Your actual example looks to me like a question of etiquette -
but I regard aesthetics, morality and etiquette as points in a
continuum, so that's not really a problem. The flip answer, of course,
is that it's a moral act if you think it is and not if you don't; but
that's not very satisfactory. What you're really asking is "how can a
relativist make judgements if they regard all moral codes as equally
valid?" I'm going to give something of a roundabout answer, but I hope
it'll make my position clearer in the long run...
        I would say that a pure relativist position, of the sort that
Lewis attacks in "The Abolition Of Man" is a literal impossibility.
Every conscious action that we takes requires a value-judgement of some
kind, so it is impossible to make conscious decisions without a set of
assumptions to base our judgements on. What we normally mean by morality
is a subset of these assumptions but, as Lewis points out, it's
impossible to lable one thing as "better" than another without
implicitly invoking morality. Thus a pure relativist, believing all
value-judgements to be meaningless, would be unable to act at all.
        This, obviously, is not the sort of relativist that I am. I
don't regard my beliefs as "true" in a universal sense, but I accept
that I have to have them in order to function at all. Moreover, I feel
strongly enough about some of my beliefs that I give them priority over
the beliefs of other people - in other words, if I see someone beating
up an old lady I'll intervene even if they think beating up old ladies
is right. I'm also willing to try to persuade other people to adopt my
beliefs, if I feel strongly enough about them.
        So, you might well ask, what is the point of being a relativist
who acts as if their moral code were absolute? I would say that the
principal advantage is avoidance of dogmatism. Just as relativism has a
tendency to drift towards selfishness, so moral absolutism has a
tendency to "harden" into rigid codes of behaviour with no room for
anything outside. My particular position lets me act to prevent things
that I believe are wrong without having to assume that everyone who
doesn't share my beliefs is morally deficient. I think this is a good
compromise, but of course that's just my opinion :-)
         
Sam Dodsworth (sam@aristos.demon.co.uk)
"I think there should be more sex and violence on television, not less. 
 Both are powerful catalysts of social change, at a time when change is
 desperately needed."
                        -J.G. Ballard