The idea of universality can bring into focus what for many is a serious moral dilemma. When in Rome do as the Romans due. But, what if the Romans go in for some rather nasty doings? We do not have to search very far to find societies whose norms allow the systematic mistreatment of many groups. There are caste-societies, societies that tolerate widow-burning, societies that allow stoning of women or deny them an education. There are societies where there is little, if any, freedom of political expression or where distinctions of religion or language bring with them distinctions of legal and civil rights.
Here we have a clash. On the one hand there is the relativist thought that ‘If they do it that way, it’s okay for them and in any event it’s none of my business.’ On the other hand there is the strong feeling that many have that these things just should not happen, and we should not stand idly by while they do. Thus far, it appears to me, that we have only failed solutions to the problems of which standards to implement, if the standards end up like that.
For me, this logically leads me to look at the language of ‘justice’ and of ‘rights.’ There are human rights, which the above examples flout and yet deny. The denial of rights is everybody’s concern. If young children are denied education but exploited for labor that is not okay, anywhere or any time.
Many people will want to take such a stand, but then they get confused and defeated by the relativistic thought that, even as we say this, it is still ‘just us.’ The moral expressions I state above embody good, progressive, western standards. They are even cemented in documents such as the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights [for example, Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.]. But are they more than just ours, just now? And if we cannot see them as more than that, then who are we to impose them on others? Multiculturalism seems to be a block, not an enabler.
We can – and sometimes do – insist on our standards, or thump the table. No matter which of these we do, there will still be that little voice whispering that we are merely imposing our wills on others. Here is a story that illustrates this idea. When I was teaching business ethics many years ago I had the opportunity to attend an ethics conference. During the conference there was a panel ‘discussion’ and on the panel were representatives of some of the ‘great’ religions. First the Buddhist talked of the ways to calm, the mastery of desire, the path of enlightenment, and the other panelists all said, ‘Wow, terrific, if that works for you that’s great.’ Then the Hindu talked of the cycles of suffering and birth and rebirth, the teachings of Krishna and the way to release, and the other panelists all said, ‘Wow, terrific, if that works for you that’s great.’ Then the Christian fundamentalist spoke of the message of Jesus Christ, the promise of salvation, and the way to life eternal, and the other panelists all said, ‘Wow, terrific, if hat works for you that’s great.’ And he thumped the table and shouted, ‘NO!’ It’s not a question of if it works for me! It’s the true word of the living God, and if you don’t believe it you’re all damned to hell!’ And they all said, ‘Wow, terrific, if that works for you that’s great!’
The disconnect of course lies in the mismatch between what the fundamentalist intends – a claim to unique authority and truth – and what he is heard as offering, which is a particular avowal, satisfying to him, but only to be tolerated [or patronized] like any other. Perhaps the moral is that once a relativist frame of mind is really in place, nothing – no claims to truth, authority, certainty, or necessity – will be audible except as one more saying like all the others. Of course, that person talks of certainty and truth, says the relativist. That’s just HIS certainty and truth, made absolute for him.
Searcher-Seeker 