4 ms·

"In the interests of pluralism (not relativism)" Honestly asking as I hadn't seen anyone side-stepping the moral absolutism/relativism question in this way bef

by roel_v 8y ago

"In the interests of pluralism (not relativism)" Honestly asking as I hadn't seen anyone side-stepping the moral absolutism/relativism question in this way before - where is the line between 'pluralism' and 'relativism'? At what point does 'accepting' an alternative set of morals become 'condoning' them? (again I'm not arguing a side here and I'm not asking in an attempt to tease out a standpoint I can attack - I'm interested in arguments from both sides)

Veen 8y ago
What I have in mind is cultural pluralism. Take the US; most people accept a certain set of political norms: democracy, the constitution, a republic-style political system. But people who accept those basic norms and institutions can have a wide variety of cultural and political beliefs. They can be left wing or right wing, Orthodox Jew or atheist, patriarchal or egalitarian. But they all accept the basic US framework and recognize that people with differing beliefs have every right to freedom of conscience and lifestyle. It's not relativism because I wouldn't claim that every group or culture's norms and practices are equally right. I might think some of them are completely wrong. But I do hold that, so long as their wrongness doesn't go against the core norms and institutions of the nation, then we live and let live, with the caveat that people are also free to leave their communities and join others. So far as I can see, this is the only pragmatic way to organize things, since people are going to disagree about important things and we all have to live together.
- saalweachter 8y ago
  I think it's important within the pluralist framework to also recognize that we require conformance from all groups in more than just the small core. We require all groups to be law-abiding in action if not thought. Part of the democratic ideals is that if The People make a law, everyone will follow it, even as they campaign to change it. (Which glosses over some legitimate forms of protest, but this is an internet comment, not a book.) Whether there are laws on the books that could be applied to this case, or whether there should be, I am not a lawyer or a politician, but American pluralism doesn't require blind acceptance of any practice of another group, even religious practice (polygamy, for instance?). The core of our shared system provides mechanisms for deciding whether a behavior is acceptable, prohibited or obligate.
  - jimbokun 8y ago
    The US Constitution places very strict limitations on what kind of laws are allowed to enforce those “shared beliefs”. I think this is a net positive. I believe when people advocate for expanding the scope of what beliefs and behaviors government can enforce, they lack the imagination to wonder what could happen if you find your beliefs in the minority one day.
- mcguire 8y ago
  Some might feel that not giving complete credit to a woman because she is a woman goes against the core norms and institutions of modern civilization.
  - Veen 8y ago
    Yes, some might, which is why I specified that people must be free to choose their own culture, and, of course, people must be free to speak their mind. But the price of living in a society with diverse communities is that we occasionally have to hold our noses when people embrace shitty ideas. In fact, we have to defend their ability to do so.
shkkmo 8y ago
> At what point does 'accepting' an alternative set of morals become 'condoning' them? As far as I can tell, those words mean practically the same thing. "Condone" is modernly generally only used in the negative sense, and thus people may be confused into thinking it means something akin to "endorse" or "support". In actuality it means something much more akin to "tolerate". "pluralism" and "relativism" are harder words to nail down. One way might be to say the relativism says that all moral systems are equally valid while pluralism says that there are more than one valid moral system. Here, I think "pluralism" is being presented as its own moral virtue (rather than as a philosophical stance): tolerance of other moral systems and beliefs is good. > pluralism in general tries to leave people alone to pursue their own ends as long as they’re willing to play nice with others. Part of playing nice with others for pluralism is not trying to coerce others into adopting your truths, values, and ethics, even if you think you’re right and the other party is wrong. That live and let live attitude may be the same practical result as relativism, but it is reached by starting at a different philosophical standpoint. http://blogs.bu.edu/dscott/2011/06/24/pluralism-vs-relativism/ http://blogs.bu.edu/dscott/2011/06/24/pluralism-vs-relativis... So I guess the point being made is that while a lot of sexism is bad, especially where it is imposed unwillingly, there there may be acceptable sexist moral systems that limit that sexism to voluntary participants of that moral system. However, the choice of voluntary participation in the moral system is usually suppressed in sexist moral systems which makes them unacceptable from a pluralist stance.

by roel_v 8y ago

Veen 8y ago

What I have in mind is cultural pluralism. Take the US; most people accept a certain set of political norms: democracy, the constitution, a republic-style political system. But people who accept those basic norms and institutions can have a wide variety of cultural and political beliefs. They can be left wing or right wing, Orthodox Jew or atheist, patriarchal or egalitarian. But they all accept the basic US framework and recognize that people with differing beliefs have every right to freedom of conscience and lifestyle. It's not relativism because I wouldn't claim that every group or culture's norms and practices are equally right. I might think some of them are completely wrong. But I do hold that, so long as their wrongness doesn't go against the core norms and institutions of the nation, then we live and let live, with the caveat that people are also free to leave their communities and join others. So far as I can see, this is the only pragmatic way to organize things, since people are going to disagree about important things and we all have to live together.

saalweachter 8y ago
I think it's important within the pluralist framework to also recognize that we require conformance from all groups in more than just the small core. We require all groups to be law-abiding in action if not thought. Part of the democratic ideals is that if The People make a law, everyone will follow it, even as they campaign to change it. (Which glosses over some legitimate forms of protest, but this is an internet comment, not a book.) Whether there are laws on the books that could be applied to this case, or whether there should be, I am not a lawyer or a politician, but American pluralism doesn't require blind acceptance of any practice of another group, even religious practice (polygamy, for instance?). The core of our shared system provides mechanisms for deciding whether a behavior is acceptable, prohibited or obligate.
- jimbokun 8y ago
  The US Constitution places very strict limitations on what kind of laws are allowed to enforce those “shared beliefs”. I think this is a net positive. I believe when people advocate for expanding the scope of what beliefs and behaviors government can enforce, they lack the imagination to wonder what could happen if you find your beliefs in the minority one day.
mcguire 8y ago
Some might feel that not giving complete credit to a woman because she is a woman goes against the core norms and institutions of modern civilization.
- Veen 8y ago
  Yes, some might, which is why I specified that people must be free to choose their own culture, and, of course, people must be free to speak their mind. But the price of living in a society with diverse communities is that we occasionally have to hold our noses when people embrace shitty ideas. In fact, we have to defend their ability to do so.

shkkmo 8y ago

> At what point does 'accepting' an alternative set of morals become 'condoning' them? As far as I can tell, those words mean practically the same thing. "Condone" is modernly generally only used in the negative sense, and thus people may be confused into thinking it means something akin to "endorse" or "support". In actuality it means something much more akin to "tolerate". "pluralism" and "relativism" are harder words to nail down. One way might be to say the relativism says that all moral systems are equally valid while pluralism says that there are more than one valid moral system. Here, I think "pluralism" is being presented as its own moral virtue (rather than as a philosophical stance): tolerance of other moral systems and beliefs is good. > pluralism in general tries to leave people alone to pursue their own ends as long as they’re willing to play nice with others. Part of playing nice with others for pluralism is not trying to coerce others into adopting your truths, values, and ethics, even if you think you’re right and the other party is wrong. That live and let live attitude may be the same practical result as relativism, but it is reached by starting at a different philosophical standpoint. http://blogs.bu.edu/dscott/2011/06/24/pluralism-vs-relativism/ http://blogs.bu.edu/dscott/2011/06/24/pluralism-vs-relativis... So I guess the point being made is that while a lot of sexism is bad, especially where it is imposed unwillingly, there there may be acceptable sexist moral systems that limit that sexism to voluntary participants of that moral system. However, the choice of voluntary participation in the moral system is usually suppressed in sexist moral systems which makes them unacceptable from a pluralist stance.