Moral Minima by Lenn E. Goodman. (2010)

¶ … Moral Minima" by Lenn E. Goodman. (2010) The Good Society 19(1): 87-94

Discussion of morality is almost always contentious. Who defines morality? Whose morality is it? Can one culture's morality be imposed on another's? Can the Westerners judge non-Westerns based on Western understandings of morality and vice versa? These are obviously legitimate questions. Philosophers, social scientists, human rights activists, politicians, and even criminals engage in this debate. In the last sixty years, advocates of diversity and respect for all cultures have condemned old colonial and racial classifications of the world, arguing that cultural practices of different nations must be analyzed and understood within the context of these specific nations. These people are generally called "moral relativists," especially by critics of such a view. Critics argue that moral relativism is morally bankrupt and that it ends up justifying abhorrent practices around the world. They argue that there are certain practices that must be universally condemned. Lenn Goodman, in his article "Some moral minima" makes this argument. He harshly criticizes "moral relativists" for justifying practices which must be universally condemned. But Goodman fails to convince the reader because his assumptions are patently wrong and the examples he provides to support his argument are mostly irrelevant to the discussion.

Goodman has valid points. And he is not totally against moral relativism either. He notes that certain harmless cultural practices must be understood within the cultural context and respected. It is also true that dictators in Asian and African countries sometimes try to justify their oppressive cultural practices under the banner of moral relativism. And one would be hard pressed to disagree with the following words: "There is no proper compromise with Nazis in full spate, or the Khmer Rouge. What can link us morally to the Hutus at the door, or Mongol invaders, Inquisitor torturers, Red Guards, ethnic cleansers, Mujahidin, or Janjaweed? Here the human bonds demanding universal respect and sincerity can become otiose, even obscene" (p. 87). Goodman has a compelling case against these examples of human depravity.

Goodman is again in a strong position when he lists certain practices which can never be justified on relativist terms. Such practices are: genocide, politically-induced famine, terrorism, hostage taking, germ warfare, child warriors, slavery, rape, incest, polygamy, and cliterodectomy (p. 88). But here is the problem with Goodman's argumentation. With the exception of the last three, no "moral relativist" ever tries to defend any of these practices. It is not clear from Goodman's reading why it is even necessary to point out that these practices are abhorrent. Does anyone in domestic or international public try to justify genocide or slavery on cultural grounds? No one does, but if someone tries to justify these practices, he or she is universally condemned.

Goodman argues that "wholesale murder . . . is not universally condemned" and that it "has defenders, active and vocal, passive and tacit" (p. 89). But Goodman is totally missing the point. Wholesale murder is universally condemned. It is one thing when an apologist tries to justify wholesale murder by rejecting that wholesale murder ever happened. It is quite another thing when one publicly defends it. The world is full of deniers of wholesale murder, but not of defenders of it. Holocaust deniers are not moral relativists. They do not argue that the Holocaust was justified because circumstances in Germany at the time required a different understanding of morality. They deny the Holocaust ever happened. Because of their depravity, some Holocaust deniers may believe it was justified, but they do not openly state it was because they know that wholesale murder is universally condemned. It is clear that Goodman's assumptions are wrong. Such practices as rape and hostage taking are also universally condemned. It is true that there are defenders of these and other abhorrent human practices. But those defenders and their views are universally condemned. Is there any academic, a reputable media outlet, or a public official who is openly justifying either hostage taking or slavery? Goodman does not mention anyone who does.