Relativism N \"Some Moral Minima,\" Lenn Goodman

Relativism

n "Some Moral Minima," Lenn Goodman argues things simply wrong. Do Goodman ? Using specific examples, explore challenges Goodman presents relativism. Determine universal moral requirements, defend answer.

Moral minima: Goodman's arguments against relativism

Given the increasing globalization of modern society, combined with the influence of postmodernism, the philosophy of moral relativism has become increasingly popular and accepted within the academy. However, according to Lenn E. Goodman's essay "Some moral minima," some things are 'just wrong.' Goodman writes: "All living beings make claims to life" (Goodman 2010: 88). In other words, to protect the sanctity of human life, sometimes it is necessary to lay down certain absolute ground rules of morality that, regardless of cultural differences, must be obeyed. These include prohibiting: terrorism; hostage taking and child warriors; slavery, polygamy, and incest; and rape and female genital cutting (Goodman 2010: 88).

However, while these ideas may seem like 'no brainers' in terms of the moral revulsion which they inspire, on closer examination Goodman's rationalizations for focusing on these transgressions is somewhat problematic. For example, Goodman asserts: "Why is genocide uglier than murder? The answer lies in the intent, not just the scale of the crime" (Goodman 2010: 88). The controversial implication of this statement is that a 'hate crime' is inherently worse than an equally violent crime not rooted in hate (for example, murdering someone who is an African-American for his money is inherently, morally worse than murdering someone for whom the man is as a human being). It suggests that genocides, such as committed by Hitler against the Jewish people, are inherently morally worse than the equally bloody and violent carnage caused by the terror of Stalin. Of course, it certainly is possible and valid to argue these points, but to suggest that these points are entirely beyond debate is questionable. Goodman has a clearly deontological orientation as a moralist: he asserts that the intentions of the action, not the results of the action, are all that matters.

Goodman also states that terrorism is morally indefensible (Goodman 2010: 89). Once again, this seems like a reasonable assertion to make, particularly in the wake of the horrors our nation suffered on September 11, 2001. However, it is also important to remember that many of the tactics used during the American Revolutionary War on the patriot side were questionable in terms of the 'rules' of warfare at the time. Also, to create a viable compromise to rule Northern Ireland, as well as to negotiate a peace treaty in the Middle East (or simply to arrange for an exchange of hostages or prisoners), some 'dealing' with morally repugnant terrorists could be said to have been or will be necessary. Once again, this is in no way a defense of terrorist actions under any circumstances, but rather a challenge to the notion that the view one must take of terrorism is uncomplicated and black-and-white in a cross-cultural fashion and applicable to all circumstances.

It is important to remember that even in today's day and age; slavery is still common in many places around the globe. Goodman lists slavery as yet another moral evil, one which is both repugnant yet is incredibly profitable. "Drugs are sold only once. Humans can be sold multiple times" (Goodman 2010: 91). This is, Goodman stresses, a moral evil we have moved beyond. However, while it is impossible to endorse the evils of human trafficking, it is equally important that we as a society acknowledge the 'grey' area of slave labor. How many of our inexpensive goods that we purchase are the result of low-wage workers in underdeveloped countries or workers who labor in sweatshops, illegally and receiving far less than the minimum wage? This is not to excuse any of these behaviors, merely to question the universality of what constitutes 'wage slavery' (and for some Marxists, all capitalism is reliant upon some form of wage slavery). Even more questionable is Goodman's equation of human slavery with polygamy and incest, which Goodman characterizes as inherently exploitative, even if between consenting adults. The definition of 'incest' and when it is inappropriate to marry a member of one's family is debatable even amongst the civilized world: in some countries it is legal to marry one's cousin; in other societies it is considered wrong for a brother to marry his deceased brother's wife, even though the two have no blood relationships. It should be noted that Goodman is well aware of this objection and states that "relativists, from the early Sophists on, love to flaunt the cultural differences in kinship laws, or even their imagined absence. But no society leaves sexual relations unregulated" (Goodman 2010: 91). However, the mere fact that regulations exist cross-culturally does not mean that the practices we find most abhorrent as Westerners are automatically wrong. Furthermore, virtually all cultures have some socially or religiously taboo foods, but the foods which are prohibited in one culture yet accepted in another are so varied, not even Goodman could assert that we could agree as a species that one type of diet is inherently better than another diet.