23 October 2009

Moral Relativism

Antonia Senior of the Times of London suggests that moral relativism makes it difficult to fight against groups like the British National Party. While I think that blaming the academy is every bit as tired as straight-up moral relativism, the article is still interesting.
Posted by at

6 comments:

  1. Unknown25 November, 2009 22:59

    Hi Eric. I'm curious, as a novice (just started an MRes leading to PhD in Scottish culture & media and needing all the help I can get!), why do you think relativism is tired?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Nationalism Project Blog02 December, 2009 15:37

    From my perspective, it lacks any real rigor. While I'm not keen on the nineteenth century anthropological view that held western culture to be superior to all comers, I also find it difficult to see National Socialism as on par with liberal democracy. Don't we need a means of discussing differing opinions that allows for shades of grey? As it stands, relativism allows us to simply say: "well, that's my opinion and it is every bit as valuable as yours." Well, maybe it is, but then again, maybe it isn't. Not every answer is equally valid.

    What are your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unknown12 January, 2010 21:33

    I would agree with that up to a point. I don't see myself agreeing with relativism, I feel I'm more at home with constructionism and social constructionism in particular, but obviously I have tons more to read and learn. However who decides which opinions are more valid than others? Some things like the BNP we suppose the majority sees as morraly wrong, but what about things which are not as cut and dry like customs of other nations which our nation does not happen to agree with - does that just become a grey area, and does that lead us back to relativism? (p.s. sorry I took so long to come back - I'm nearing the end of too many submissions on subjects I've never heard of before!)

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Nationalism Project Blog16 January, 2010 15:02

    You ask a great question. Who does decide? You also make an interesting comment when you write "...what about things which are not as cut and dry like customs of other nations which our nation does not happen to agree with..."

    What strikes me about this is that you assume (almost everybody does) that a "nation" has common opinions. If you think about it, nations are actually defined as much by internal debate as by consensus, yet we assume agreement. What needs more exploration is how this internal debate works. How exactly does an opinion become "our nation's" opinion? Once you figure that out (and I think that it has a lot more to do with process than it does with specific actors), it should become a lot easier to discover who decides "which opinions are more valid than others." Naturally, if I'm right about the importance of process, then it should be fairly clear that the opinions in question will change over time. The actors will also change considerably from moment to moment. Moral relativism is therefore a product of specific historical contexts.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Unknown08 August, 2010 21:05

    Hi Eric
    I've come back for a rake - I don't get time too as often as I'd like! However, on a personal note from your above response I'm curious, would you class yourself as a Foucauldian? I'm trying very hard to get to grips to what he says in about discorses and the construction of reality (History of Sexuality), I think it totally fits what I'm doing and recognise it in what you are saying - I think!

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Nationalism Project Blog06 September, 2010 13:37

    I would not classify myself as a Foucauldian, though I think that he gets quite a lot right and I'm sure that I've been influenced by him (as by many others).

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)