Why Relativism Will Lead to a Disintegrated Society | Vanessa Smiley | TEDxYouth@SAS

Summary

This script delves into the dangers of moral relativism, a philosophy suggesting that moral truths vary from person to person. It critiques the idea that truth is subjective and argues against its prevalence in American society and legal system. The speaker points out the hypocrisy of relativists who dismiss absolute truth in favor of personal beliefs, yet still judge actions like murder and terrorism as wrong. The script also discusses the challenges faced by the US legal system in balancing moral absolutes with cultural diversity, using specific cases to illustrate the conflict between accommodating cultural practices and upholding the law.

Takeaways

• 🗣️ The phrase 'let's agree to disagree' is commonly used in American society to end discussions on moral dilemmas, religious beliefs, or political opinions, reflecting a relativistic viewpoint.
• 🔄 Moral relativism suggests that moral principles are subjective and vary from person to person, implying that there are no universal moral truths.
• 🚫 The speaker argues against moral relativism, calling it a 'paradise for the ignorant and the cowardly', and claims it's based on a logical fallacy that violates the law of non-contradiction.
• 🤔 The script challenges the idea that all cultural and moral propositions have equal value, using the example of conflicting beliefs about the origins of life to illustrate the problem with relativism.
• 👤 It discusses Protagoras, the ancient Greek philosopher, as a foundational figure in moral relativism, who believed that perception shapes reality and that 'man is the measure of all things'.
• 🧠 Psychological findings are mentioned to support the idea that culture and environment influence moral perceptions, leading to the development of moral relativism.
• 🏛️ The script highlights the impact of moral relativism on the US legal system, suggesting that it has led to legal decisions that accommodate cultural differences at the expense of established moral absolutes.
• 👳‍♀️ A case involving a Muslim woman in Michigan is cited as an example of how moral relativism can lead to conflicts between religious practices and legal requirements.
• 🌐 The script discusses the challenges of representing multiple cultural viewpoints within a legal system, arguing that it's impractical to reconcile opposing perspectives like individualistic American values and collective Asian values.
• 🏡 It uses the example of a New York judge applying Islamic law to justify a verdict, illustrating the potential for moral relativism to undermine established legal standards.
• 🙅‍♀️ The speaker concludes by advocating for a rejection of moral relativism and a return to recognizing moral absolutes, emphasizing the importance of this stance for future generations of lawmakers and judges.

Q & A

What is the main argument against moral relativism presented in the script?

The main argument against moral relativism is that it leads to the belief that truth and morality are subjective and vary from person to person, which can be dangerous as it allows for the justification of any behavior, including heinous acts, based on individual or cultural beliefs.

How does the script define moral relativism?

Moral relativism is defined as the belief that moral principles are not universal but instead reflect individual worldviews, leading to the conclusion that morality differs from individual to individual.

What is the law of non-contradiction as mentioned in the script?

The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same sense, meaning two contradictory truths cannot be true simultaneously.

Who is Protagoras and what is his connection to moral relativism?

Protagoras is an ancient Greek philosopher who is considered one of the first to propose that perception usually supersedes reality, leading to the idea that 'man is the measure of all things.' His philosophy laid the groundwork for moral relativism by suggesting that human knowledge is limited to perception.

How does the script suggest that moral relativism can impact the legal system?

The script suggests that moral relativism can lead to legal decisions that prioritize individual or cultural beliefs over established laws, potentially causing conflicts between constitutional rights and creating a slippery slope towards anarchy.

What is the example given in the script to illustrate the conflict between moral relativism and the law?

The script provides the example of a Muslim woman who refused to remove her head scarf in court, arguing it would violate her Islamic moral beliefs, despite the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause requiring open testimony.

What is the 'culture of advocacy' mentioned in the script?

The 'culture of advocacy' refers to the rise of minority groups advocating for their rights and cultural practices, which, when mixed with moral relativism, can complicate the legal system's attempts to represent diverse cultural viewpoints.

How does the script argue that tolerance and moral relativism are different?

The script argues that tolerance means accepting and dealing with different cultural and moral views without necessarily agreeing with them, whereas moral relativism requires treating all cultural views of morality as equal, which can lead to the acceptance of behaviors that are fundamentally opposed to a society's principles.

What is the case of Joseph Charles mentioned in the script, and what does it illustrate about moral relativism?

Joseph Charles, a family court judge, declared a Muslim man innocent of rape based on Islamic law, which requires women to submit to their husband's will. This case illustrates how moral relativism can lead to the acceptance of behaviors that are illegal or morally reprehensible by mainstream standards.

How does the script suggest that moral absolutes should be approached in a diverse society?

The script suggests that while it is important to tolerate and understand diverse cultural and moral views, there must be a recognition of moral absolutes to maintain a just and orderly society, and that the legal system should not be swayed by relativistic influences.

What is the Michael Fay incident mentioned in the script, and what does it signify?

The Michael Fay incident involved an American teenager who was sentenced to prison and caning for theft in Singapore. The US protested the sentence as too harsh, but Singapore upheld its laws. This incident signifies the importance of adhering to a country's legal standards, regardless of individual or cultural beliefs.