Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Relevance versus facts and value

By Richard Stanton - posted Wednesday, 15 February 2012


Moral relativism can be used as a positive or negative weapon depending upon how you are looking at it. For the traditional Australian Catholic or Protestant, relativism erodes traditional values, beliefs and thus morals. It was no coincidence that the chief justice and 50 of his colleagues, on the morning of the start of the law term, attended St Mary's cathedral in Sydney for what is known as Red Mass - an annual service for those seeking or dispensing justice to seek guidance.

As Stephen Croucher attempted to discover in a survey of British and French Christians and Muslims the question of morality is tied tightly to the question of what it is to live one's life within universally understood notions of right and wrong.

Moral relativism is the capacity to see all value systems as equal, all societies being of equal value and all cultures being privileged. There is no room for imperialism - for the idea that there is some universal value to which everyone must adhere.

Advertisement

Part of the problem for the debate on gay marriage in Australia lies in the moral absolutism of the major religions and the moral relativism of those advocating gay marriage.

It is also the problem for the carbon tax though in a more complex sense it lies outside the traditional values but within a moral framework represented by the two-party political system.

Moral relativism and moral absolutism are difficult concepts to apprehend. They are difficult because the language of theory is privileged over the language of practice - the very concept that relativism attempts to avoid. When someone says "it's all relative" they are most frequently attempting to avoid conflict or avoid deep discussion because they have no real grasp of its meaning. The gap between the complex language, or narrative of theory, as we now like to call it, and the narrative of practice, is enormous, as Mr Bathurst rightly implies. When we attempt to construct a narrative, or language, around an issue so that it can be communicated to relevant stakeholders - any issue; gay marriage, ethnic diversity, carbon tax - we must use the language that the stakeholders we are pitching to will apprehend and thus, applaud the action or policy to which the narrative is attached.

The carbon tax narrative was underpinned by moral relativism (advocates) and moral absolutism (opponents). The question must be why the wider community has divided in absolute and relative terms and why it no longer places trust in its institutions such as the criminal justice system.

Chief Justice Bathurst provided some thought-provoking answers when he argued for respect for the criminal justice system - it should be viewed in absolute value terms.

If you use internet banking you expect your bank to act in absolute terms - no oughts or ought nots; simple absolutism every time you access your account. The same is the case with every socioeconomic action, so why is it not the case in sociopolitical actions? Most often it is due to the nature of the narrative and the capacity of the relativists to frame an argument that, while coherent, is also difficult to rebut.

Advertisement

For the advocates of the carbon tax the issue is clear - scientific evidence points to global warming. However, is it in fact clear? Is it a social issue constructed around the idea of cultural and thus, moral relativism?

To Hume's concept of matters of fact versus matters of value we can add his empirical observations that moral conclusions cannot be deducted from non-moral premises – something 'is' or 'is not'; it cannot be 'ought' or 'ought not'.

Without knowing that we do, so many of us hold to Hume's doctrine in our daily working and private lives - there is little time for prevarication - if we don't leave now, we will miss the train and be late for work. The train will not wait while we consider what ought to happen.

The Chief Justice has constructed an interesting platform for the continuation of the narrative on community participation in criminal justice and thus, participation in the framing of policy in the wider public sphere.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

18 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Richard Stanton is a political communication writer and media critic. His most recent book is Do What They Like: The Media In The Australian Election Campaign 2010.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Richard Stanton

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 18 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy