(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

The past few days my thoughts have been on the matter of ethical relativism. This is the idea that ethics are partially or entirely "subjective," or variable from one person to the next.

I am not an ethical relativist. That is to say, I believe that no matter what approach and logic we start with, we should end up with a fairly consistent core set of ethical principles. The details may vary from one system to the next, but I think that most people, and most ethical approaches, would recommend a fairly consistent set of actions for given types of situations.

I am also, on balance, a consequentialist. This approach suggests that ethics are "situational," IOW that there are no ethical absolutes, but rather sets of principles that have to be weighed for each situation. Consequentialism is on the whole a pragmatic approach, which makes me fret a bit, because I don't feel that ends always justify means. But this is all stuff that I'm sorting out at present, and lucky you, you get to see my thoughts and perhaps play a role in helping them formulate.

Now, consider this excerpt, which is quoted on this page on ethical relativism:

We might suppose that in the matter of taking life all peoples would agree on condemnation. On the contrary, in the matter of homicide, it may be held that one kills by custom his two children, or that a husband has a right of life and death over his wife or that it is the duty of the child to kill his parents before they are old. It may be the case that those are killed who steal fowl, or who cut their upper teeth first, or who are born on Wednesday. Among some peoples, a person suffers torment at having caused an accidental death; among others, it is a matter of no consequence. Suicide may also be a light matter, the recourse of anyone who has suffered some slight rebuff, an act that constantly occurs in a tribe. It may be the highest and noblest act a wise man can perform. The very tale of it, on the other hand, may be a matter for incredulous mirth, and the act itself, impossible to conceive as human possibility. Or it may be a crime punishable by law, or regarded as a sin against the gods. (Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture, pp. 45-46)

I'm not sure from the context whether or not Benedict's examples given above are actually to be found, or are simply illustrative. But in either case my thought is that societies where homicide has been more acceptable (probably considered akin to euthanasia) are not the ones which have succeeded; is this a coincidence, or could it be the case that in the long run or on the average, societies with a more "sound" set of ethics tend to prevail? I know I'm getting into shaky territory there, but I am not convinced for example that military might has always prevailed.

Comments

[14cyclenotes.livejournal.com]

is this a coincidence, or could it be the case that in the long run or on the average, societies with a more "sound" set of ethics tend to prevail? I know I'm getting into shaky territory there, but I am not convinced for example that military might has always prevailed.

"Prevail" is a treacherous term. On what timescale? Roman society did quite well for centuries, but they eventually fell. Military might served them well for a long time, and it was eventually what destroyed them in their turn.

I don't know how we'd test the idea that the stronger military always wins. We usually define winning as the test for which military is strongest, so again we're running into definition problems.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

"Prevail" is a treacherous term.

I mean in the longest term measurable.

As you say, military might provided for Rome's ascendance, and for its decent as well. That's the problem with empires. They look good in the short term, but they are only tenable for a few generations. Eventually the artificially skewed economic scheme collapses. Imperial ethics are doomed.


I don't know how we'd test the idea that the stronger military always wins.

I'm not concerned with military victory. I'm concerned with cultural prevalence. For example, even though the Romans conquered Hellenistic society, Hellenistic culture prevailed and dominated Roman society.

[14cyclenotes.livejournal.com]

As you say, military might provided for Rome's ascendance, and for its decent as well. That's the problem with empires. They look good in the short term, but they are only tenable for a few generations. Eventually the artificially skewed economic scheme collapses. Imperial ethics are doomed.

Everything is doomed. No society yet devised by man has not fallen. The Romans did fairly well though - between the Empire and the Republic, Rome dominated the Mediterranean for about 500 years. That's about 25 generations, give or take.

I'm not concerned with military victory. I'm concerned with cultural prevalence. For example, even though the Romans conquered Hellenistic society, Hellenistic culture prevailed and dominated Roman society.

It wasn't that simple. The Romans were famous adopters and adapters. Their culture naturally tended to absorb other cultures and make use of whatever the Romans found valuable there. The Greeks were philosophers, and many cultures found their philosophies useful. But their political system didn't take root anywhere but with them. So it's hard to say that their culture "prevailed."

In fact, that's true in a larger sense as well. Europe today is a melange, with a legal system borrowed from Rome, a philosophical system that still survives from the Greeks, a political system adapted from England and the United States, and a religion grafted on from ancient Palestine by way of Rome. So which culture "prevailed" in that salad?

This is why I called that a treacherous term: it doesn't really mean anything when you apply it to a culture. Every culture fails eventually, but all cutures survive in some form, even if it's only the shape they lend to other cultures.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Your points are good, and make me question the wisdom of seeking to explain the evolution of ethics in terms of prevailing societies or cultures altogether. (In fact there are paths leading away from that approach that go into some of the darker and murkier aspects of sociology that I would just as soon avoid.)

Perhaps a more useful idea is that of paradigms. After all, a paradigm shift doesn't necessarily mean that a culture or society has really changed. France before and after the revolution, for example, may not have been all that different of a society, even if its heirarchy became more ethical as a result.