Moral relativity and objective truth

[Anakin McFly]

I had a very, very long and intense debate with my younger brother about this a while back. I'm a moral relativist on a micro level, i.e. different cultures/people sometimes have different ideas of morality and what's considered good or evil, but they also believe that 'good' and 'evil' still actually mean something (sort of like on a Platonic level) and that morality by definition is about people trying to figure out how to be good, even if in the process they end up doing things that others consider bad.

So for example if there's a culture that kills babies and considers that morally acceptable, that seeming evil might actually be to serve a greater good - perhaps because they're poor and starving and know that having extra mouths to feed would end up causing more suffering for the rest. Or with a religious example, if someone believes that God thinks X is a sin and Y is a good thing to do, then for them, being a morally good person would mean avoiding X and doing Y, and by so doing they are being good people to the best of their ability and knowledge.

However, that's just on the individual scale; I argue that on a larger scale, some moral compasses are more valid than others, morality can improve or degrade, and moral systems can be assessed on things such as its adherence to the greater rule of doing no harm.

But my brother, who is a total relativist, points out that even the harm principle is culturally biased and a relatively modern idea. He thus believes that everything is inherently subjective and subject to our own bias, including not just the notion of 'good' but also that of 'truth', and that believing otherwise is arrogant.

I argued against his claim that there's no objective truth by bringing up maths and science - for instance that 1+1 always = 2. But he said that that too is subjective, because mathematics and things like the scientific method or a rationalistic/logical worldview are also human constructs that are a product of our cultures: what gives us the right to say that rationalism is a more valid worldview than ancient Greek theology? We only consider it as such because we're working from our own bias; whereas the ancient Greeks would probably think otherwise. Or take evolution and creationism - what reason do we have to believe that evolution is correct and not creationism? The creationists have an internally consistent worldview based on taking the Bible literally. To condemn it as unscientific would require first considering the scientific approach to be a more valid approach, based on privileging science (and thus condemning the unscientific) in the first place, which is circular logic.

Such that to make an objective claim about one worldview being more 'right' than another, it would mean claiming the existence of some objective standard by which various worldviews can be measured against. As far as we know, no such standard exists. Even if one invokes theism to say that God provides the standard, we then come against the Euthyphro dilemma - is something good because God says so? if so, then it's still relative to God's opinions and not objective; or does God say it is good because it is good? If so, then it suggests an external objective standard, and we're back at square one.

I suggested that maybe moral systems can't be measured against an external standard for rightness, but they can be assessed for their internal consistency (e.g. if a moral system says 'hurting people is bad', and yet encourages actions that hurt people, when they realise that and revise the rules to be more consistent with the do-no-harm principle it would be an improved moral system.) But my brother said that consistency is no marker of morality; does that mean that if a society has a perfectly internally consistent moral system that requires torturing and enslaving neighbouring cultures, they would be objectively good? which is a fair point.

His conclusion was: morality does not objectively exist, so just be selfish and do what makes you happy because that's what most people do. I asked, "does that mean I could just go robbing and killing people?"
"Would that make you happy?" he asked.
"No."
"Then don't do it!"

He pointed out that "what makes you happy" would also often include following the moral laws which one believes are true, even if they have no objective validity, such that his approach wouldn't result in the world falling into moral anarchy. He also said that there are laws in place, so just because, say, murdering innocent people might not be objectively wrong, it would get a lot of people angry and would get you jailed, and if that won't make you happy, you shouldn't murder innocent people. He says that for example, since he's a Christian, he follows the Christian moral framework, but that doesn't mean he thinks it's objectively right, because it isn't. So if other people have different ideas of morality, it's none of his business to argue against them, unless arguing against them makes him happy.

anyway as the result of that discussion I had a huge existential dilemma and fell into depression for a few days (it was the festive period. I was already sad. This was the last straw.) If the only reason I think anything is right or wrong is because of my own bias, then... what right do I have to declare anything right or wrong outside of my own opinion? What right do I have to say that sexism or racism is bad, for instance, and are things to be criticised and fought against, or that science and logic are good things? Wouldn't that belief require immense arrogance on my part, given that there's no shortage of humans who firmly believe the opposite; what makes me right and them wrong, other than other people who agree with me saying likewise? But isn't the whole idea of arrogance = bad also in itself subjective? As well as the belief that it is good to strive to do the right thing? But what is 'good'?

I feel that some things have to be true, and that there's something inherently wrong about just doing whatever makes you happy, but I don't know how to logically justify that belief. I don't know if it can be justified.

Am I missing something in all this mess? (FWIW my brother was a school debater who once represented Singapore internationally and won first place.)

[Cassius Clay]

Welcome back.

Hmmmm. Well, for one, pointing out people's inconsistencies/hypocrisies is sort of key in a lot of moral criticism regarding oppression. You criticize people for not meeting their own standards(standard's you obviously share)...as well as their ignorance of the facts(the narratives they tell us to justify their abusive power). For example, the Israeli Prime Minister has recently been criticized for showing up for the free speech, anti-terror marches in Paris...even though he apparently had 17 Palestinian journalists murdered last year(applying his own "terrorism" on "free speech"). Oppressive powers usually fail to meet their own proclaimed standards of behavior they expect from others. When you read between the lines, you see their standards don't mean as much to them as they pretend it does(or delude themselves into believing), or as it might appear...it's basically..."we'll do whatever we want"...or "we'll do whatever is convenient for our interests". That's the bottom line.

These inconsistencies often show just how morally bankrupt humanity can be. Allowing abuse, injustice and inequality to hide behind proclaimed "standards, principles, and rights". And power gets to be the standard for "right". Anything power does is deemed right, and it's oppressed always "wrong". Terrorism isn't terrorism unless it's Muslims(or non-whites), and lives don't matter unless their white/Western. But, you bet most Westerners would proclaim that "all lives matter", and "terrorism is terrorism". With this inconsistency, the funny thing is that when a life is only valued based on that person's relationship to power, it sort of makes a joke out of the idea of caring about any loss of life in the first place.

Edit: And I guess the idea is that no one wants to be a hypocrite, people tend to want to follow their own standards. But, there are some people just claiming to believe in those standards when they don't...and there's no need to pretend to have a contract or pact with people that don't follow their own standards. I don't need to pretend to have a "trust" or social arrangement with people you can't rely on to not break from their own standards.

And this is part of why I always harp on power, because things are not going to get better just because people become more educated...that does not mean that people will become more consistent with their own standards. That is not reliable...power imbalances are the problem. Organization and power shifts need to happen.

Oh yeah, and because it's about power, it often doesn't even really matter what people's "standards" are. I don't care if their standards are consistent with oppressive attitudes.

[Cassius Clay]

And if someone suddenly starts beating you up for no reason, would you ask yourself "what RIGHT do I have to fight back or ask them to stop, OUTSIDE MY OWN OPINION"? Doesn't that seem like silly question? Do you need permission from some external code or power before you can/should defend yourself?

Though I can make use of external codes and principles to highlight the hypocrisies of oppression, it really isn't the true BASIS for any type of devotion I might have to anti-oppression. It's more of an internal/subjective code than an external/objective one.

So, the implication that you can/need to or ought to COMPLETELY divorce harm/injustice from "bias", before your devotion to fighting harm can be "valid", is a silly(and frankly dangerous/oppressive) one. And I've seen plenty of privileged assholes trying to do things like that before.

[sikax]

The OP sounds very familiar. Did you post this same thing a few years ago? Hmm.... It's more likely that you and your brother just have had similarly themed conversations in your lives. Anyway, this is the bit that caught my attention:

If the only reason I think anything is right or wrong is because of my own bias, then... what right do I have to declare anything right or wrong outside of my own opinion? What right do I have to say that sexism or racism is bad, for instance, and are things to be criticised and fought against, or that science and logic are good things? Wouldn't that belief require immense arrogance on my part, given that there's no shortage of humans who firmly believe the opposite; what makes me right and them wrong, other than other people who agree with me saying likewise? But isn't the whole idea of arrogance = bad also in itself subjective? As well as the belief that it is good to strive to do the right thing? But what is 'good'?

So, alluding to Troy's point about power dynamics, when given the choice between being racist and not being racist (or thinking racism is good vs. thinking racism is bad), consider who that exchange is affecting. On one side you've got the racist (likely white, privileged...has some kind of power that allows him to be racist) and the minority he's racist against. If everything we do should be cross-valued with our happiness, then it should be instinctual to side with the oppressed for the simple fact that there are more of them. More happy people in the world, the better your chance at happiness is.

If we broke every instant of our lives down to its elemental bits, no one would ever get anything done; we would obsess over every minuscule, itching feeling and not really experience the world. That's the point of other people and doing right by them. Determining what is "right" is up to your subjective experience. To me, the fact that you're even thinking about this suggests you're a genuinely good person who has nothing to worry about in terms of how you "should" treat people.

So far as the validity of science and logic goes, I question them sometimes. There's a line between seeing everything exclusively rationally and being. Very. Mechanical. And. Unemotional. and understanding that considering people's feelings is a motive to act and say things, too. And a lot of people think that that's a line that cannot be crossed either way, but I like to straddle it and blur it. That is, my reasoning can ultimately be a result of logical thinking, but I try not to be a dick about it in the process.

[Anakin McFly]

@sikax - Haha yeah, we have a lot of conversations like that. This one was a new post, but I definitely might have posted something similar in the past, though the last time we had a similar conversation it went slightly different.

@Cassius -

You criticize people for not meeting their own standards(standard's you obviously share)...as well as their ignorance of the facts(the narratives they tell us to justify their abusive power).

That's currently the approach that makes sense to me, which is why my brother's questioning regarding the moral value of logic / facts / consistency threw me off - for instance, you could have an abusive power structure that is completely internally consistent, in which case it can't be criticised on the basis of hypocrisy.

Oppressive powers usually fail to meet their own proclaimed standards of behavior they expect from others.

But yes. So that at least makes it easier.

And power gets to be the standard for "right". Anything power does is deemed right, and it's oppressed always "wrong".

Yeah, and that's the problem: how much of my own ideas of right and wrong are just the result of what society taught me? And if my very thought processes are themselves influenced by power, how can I then trust myself to use them to figure out what is right or wrong? There's no way to completely escape that bias, because even the urge to escape it is itself biased - for instance by contemporary Western values of things like liberty, freedom, even something as basic as justice, which cultures through the years have placed differing value on.

Here in Asia, for example, the idea of individual freedom isn't considered particularly important, where people are expected to sacrifice their own freedoms for the greater good of the community. So there are social expectations here which Westerners might consider barbaric and oppressive, but it's not actually viewed that way. In that case, who is 'right'?

And if someone suddenly starts beating you up for no reason, would you ask yourself "what RIGHT do I have to fight back or ask them to stop, OUTSIDE MY OWN OPINION"? Doesn't that seem like silly question?

It does, but that self-defense reflex would apply to anyone who perceives that harm is being done to them, whether or not it is justified. e.g. fundamentalist Christians who believe that gay marriage is destroying their country, and where the idea causes psychological harm to them. So it seems that there should be something more than simply preventing harm (physical, emotional, psychological) to oneself to determine whether or not something is 'right' in a larger sense.

Though I can make use of external codes and principles to highlight the hypocrisies of oppression, it really isn't the true BASIS for any type of devotion I might have to anti-oppression. It's more of an internal/subjective code than an external/objective one.

This makes sense. I think that's probably the best approach, to work on bettering internal/subjective systems, but it still bothers me that it might not mean anything objective on a larger, cosmic(?) scale.

@sikax -

If everything we do should be cross-valued with our happiness, then it should be instinctual to side with the oppressed for the simple fact that there are more of them. More happy people in the world, the better your chance at happiness is.

This is a good point.

Determining what is "right" is up to your subjective experience. To me, the fact that you're even thinking about this suggests you're a genuinely good person who has nothing to worry about in terms of how you "should" treat people.

Thanks! I still get it wrong a lot, though, and part of it is because I'm often straddling competing and/or contradicting value systems, based on the circles I run in. I grew up in Asia, spent about a year living in the US and generally have a lot of exposure to Western society via the internet - two different moral systems, and people on both sides are aghast at the things the other group considers morally acceptable. Same with the conservative Christian environment I was brought up in, and later my involvement in the LGBT community, which is way more liberal on a lot of issues, including those completely unrelated that aren't always morally clear cut.

So I end up in a lot of situations where I have a moral dilemma and want to ask people for advice, but I know beforehand what each of those people or groups of people would say, and it makes it all seem very arbitrary and meaningless. It becomes just a matter of choosing what I want to hear, regardless of whether or not it is right. I currently settle for acting according to the principles of whatever group is involved, but that can make me feel like a hypocrite when it results in contradicting behaviour based on whoever's around.

[Cassius Clay]

I don't think that abusive/unfair power imbalances are that hard to figure out, Anakin. I mean, to the point where you are questioning what "right" you have to name something as abusive. It's really not so subjective to the point where you cannot validly take a stance on anything.

I guess you could say: if you're against abuse, you are...if you're not, you're not. But most people are intuitively against abuse, but are not always that way in practice(which is where you call them on their bullshit)...especially when they indirectly benefit from it/socialized to not see or care about the abuse. And if someone is unapologetically for abuse/harm, then you can't reason with them...they are basically a psychopath. At that point it's purely about survival..it's you or them. Just pure struggle. You can only morally reason with people you share moral values with.

I think maybe you're hung up on simplistic notions of objective "good" and "bad"...instead of notions of power, abuse, and harm. The latter has more "objective" basis. So, yes, Christians could claim "harm" is being done to their country by homosexuality. So what? There's truth to that in the sense that it's a threat to the power structure. But, it's a harmful, oppressive power structure...so I don't care. It deserves to be "harmed". Christians are not being harmed in the way homosexuals are being harmed. They'll be fine if the power structure is dismantled. Their idea of "harm" is not having absolute power anymore. That is an objective measure.

[Cassius Clay]

And I want to add that the powers tend to encourage the more simplistic/subjective notions of "good" and "bad"...so they can hide behind that. Since they often get to determine what is "good" and "bad". Because, your'e right, "right" and "wrong" are not truly objective/absolute notions. So, the powers are free to play around with that. So, I think it's good to get away from that type of rigid, superficial thinking when addressing oppression.

[LSK]

Anakin, you would definitely benefit from a course on meta-ethics, which would expose you to a variety of resources about the very topics you introduced in your OP. The questions you're struggling with are the very ones that are agonized over by moral philosophers working in meta-ethics. (A variety of answers have been offered, though I'm sorry to say there is little consensus). Since we increasingly live in the age of digital education, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the several providers of massive open online courses has a class devoted to the study of meta-ethics, but I have not looked myself.

The description you've given of your own tentative beliefs does not sound like the description of a relativist. Acknowledging that moral norms seem to vary at the level of culture doesn't make one a relativist; it just makes one an observer of reality. That such norms vary across cultures says nothing about whether we ought to analyze moral actions by how well they conform to the moral systems of whatever culture they were performed in.

Your brother doesn't sound much like a relativist either. He seems more like a garden-variety moral nihilist (or perhaps a moral egoist, like Ayn Rand)—and your description of him makes it seem as if he has confused a lack of moral absolutism for evidence that morality can't be "objective." In fact, one doesn't need an absolute base (e.g., God) to have an objective moral system. When it comes to morality, "objective" means simply "a standard we can mostly agree—except the morally blind—to derive specific moral norms from." Now, many moral philosophers don't think we can really do anything like that, but plenty others have developed objective moral systems that don't have anything to do with absolutes like God, religious dictates, or some Platonic form of Truth.

You are right to think that the plurality of beliefs about morality makes it difficult to ascertain how to judge moral actions, how to judge moral systems, and how to even know if we've got the right answer. I can only encourage you to channel the uncomfortableness you're feeling now as a result of really contemplating these questions into a productive search of what answers have been given by the people who study these questions for a living.

I'm happy to help. Meta-ethics has been a subject-of-interest for me for about 6 years. I'd offer some more answers about the topics you raise in your OP, but there is a lot there, and I've found that it's quite a bit easier dealing with questions like these if you take them more systematically and one-at-a-time. So, if there are any issues or particular questions that are especially noteworthy to you, let me know, and if I know anything about them, I'll share. If I don't know anything about them, it's still possible I'll know what thinkers you might find helpful!

[Cassius Clay]

Here's a little advice from Grandmother Willow.



I'm only half-joking, though. I do get the sense that you are losing yourself among mental, moral constructs...and I feel like I've been there. And I'm not sure that going further into your head is the answer right now. I think all moral positions/oughts are ultimately dependent on what is "wanted" or "valued". There can never be complete selflessness in a such positions...and that's okay. But it seems to me you are taking selflessness to an absurd and destructive level...where you need permission from an outside source to affirm yourself and your most basic will. What role does something like empathy play in all this, for you?

[Anakin McFly]

Thanks.

I think maybe you're hung up on simplistic notions of objective "good" and "bad"...instead of notions of power, abuse, and harm. The latter has more "objective" basis.

I'd argue that the latter is based on the former, though - those things can only be 'bad' if 'bad' exists with any meaning.

I do get the sense that you are losing yourself among mental, moral constructs...and I feel like I've been there. And I'm not sure that going further into your head is the answer right now.

Yeah, that's true.

where you need permission from an outside source to affirm yourself and your most basic will. What role does something like empathy play in all this, for you?

Empathy is actually the driving factor here - empathy for every person involved, to the degree of their specific suffering. So I can empathise with the insecurity and fear of those in power having that power threatened, but empathise even more with the people they oppress as a result, because the suffering of the latter is far more extreme. It's about approaching any moral/political issue from an angle of understanding where each of the other parties are coming from, even if (especially if?) I might disagree, and through that seeking for them to likewise understand me, and hopefully from there change their views. (Or change my own, if I'm the one in the wrong.) From my experience, people are a lot more receptive to hearing other views if their own has been understood.

It's something that's worked for me, especially since it's an emotional investment/sacrifice I'm willing and able to make - which I realise isn't the case for everyone - particularly when the other party is someone in a position of power with the potential to do a lot of good (or bad). Basically, I prefer to convert people than to defeat them, especially since it's not the people per se who are the problem, but rather the power structures they exist within.

My own moral opinions on just about anything are all inextricably influenced by the circumstances of my life, and I want to acknowledge that rather than assume that I'm just a superior moral being. Knowing myself, if I'd been born a straight white cis dude I'd probably have grown up to be a gigantic asshole whining on Reddit about stupid slutty females who don't want to sleep with Nice Guys. So when I do encounter those people, even though they seriously piss me off I know that I'm not necessarily 'better' than them, personally speaking, because that could have easily been me. It doesn't mean I have to agree with them - I definitely don't - or not criticise them. But I also want to avoid the trap of self-righteousness.

Anakin, you would definitely benefit from a course on meta-ethics, which would expose you to a variety of resources about the very topics you introduced in your OP.

While in college I did one course on philosophy 101 and another on ethics specifically, so I had some exposure to that. But as you said - lots of philosophers have been agonising over these questions for ages without any solid answer. But I'm trying to learn to deal with uncertainty, because it's part of so many things in life. I looked up a few resources online on moral relativism and its critique, and the points made are similar to those brought up in this thread so far.

The description you've given of your own tentative beliefs does not sound like the description of a relativist.

ha, I think it's more that I'm a moral relativist but really don't want to be, but that's something I've always had problems justifying on a cosmic scale (which is arguably not very relevant to daily human moral life). But I've always taken for granted the idea of objective truth, specifically regarding science and mathematics and fact, and the possibility that those things might also be subjective is... deeply disconcerting. I mean, even the scientific method as we know it is a relatively recent construct.

as if he has confused a lack of moral absolutism for evidence that morality can't be "objective." In fact, one doesn't need an absolute base (e.g., God) to have an objective moral system. When it comes to morality, "objective" means simply "a standard we can mostly agree—except the morally blind—to derive specific moral norms from."

Good point, I didn't think of that distinction. I think the second part of that was what I was actually trying to put into words when debating my brother, but didn't manage to - i.e. objective relative to a standard, which can still be objective even if the standard is not. Like how north/south/east/west are objective directions on Earth even though they are all subjective and meaningless on a universal scale.

Thanks for the offer! I'll let you know if I have any more concrete avenues to pursue this.

[LSK]

I think the second part of that was what I was actually trying to put into words when debating my brother, but didn't manage to - i.e. objective relative to a standard, which can still be objective even if the standard is not. Like how north/south/east/west are objective directions on Earth even though they are all subjective and meaningless on a universal scale.

That's a good way of thinking about it. Let me suggest another, which is loosely based on an article I read by the philosopher Michael Ruse about the evolution of morality. Soccer (if you'll forgive the Americanism) has a particular set of rules. There's no absolute reason why a game should be 90 minutes long, why players should only be allowed to touch the ball with their feet, heads, or torsos, or why a red card should follow a yellow card when giving out penalties. But that is how the game is played, and these standards have achieved widespread support. Violations of these standards are punished, and fans of the game typically think such punishment is appropriate. This is objectivity. The fact that these rules don't exist "out there"—as Platonic forms, as ethereal Absolute Truths waiting to be discovered—doesn't reduce their objectivity.

People who like soccer and want to see it flourish are not dismayed by the fact that the rules of soccer are not Universal Truths. The ultimate arbitrariness of the rules does not cause them to throw their hands into the air and say, "What's the point of these rules? We ought to play soccer in whatever way pleases us most!" The stakes are a bit higher in the morality game than in the soccer game, but I think the comparison holds.

Thanks for the offer! I'll let you know if I have any more concrete avenues to pursue this.

By all means!

[Anakin McFly]

Yeah, the soccer analogy works for the objective/subjective thing. Although the game itself is already widely acknowledged as a construct, as opposed to morality, which many people believe is rooted in something more absolute or so self-evident that to question it makes you a psychopath.

[Cassius Clay]

Thanks.

I think maybe you're hung up on simplistic notions of objective "good" and "bad"...instead of notions of power, abuse, and harm. The latter has more "objective" basis.

I'd argue that the latter is based on the former, though - those things can only be 'bad' if 'bad' exists with any meaning.

I don't agree. Harm and power can be objectively perceived/defined without a moral judgement of "good" and "bad". Whether we should view it as negative and/or oppose it is a different question. Much like how pain exists independent of how we judge it.

Empathy is actually the driving factor here - empathy for every person involved, to the degree of their specific suffering. So I can empathise with the insecurity and fear of those in power having that power threatened, but empathise even more with the people they oppress as a result, because the suffering of the latter is far more extreme.

Basically, I prefer to convert people than to defeat them, especially since it's not the people per se who are the problem, but rather the power structures they exist within.

But I also want to avoid the trap of self-righteousness.

I think you are overly concerned with self-righteousness. I see having equal empathy for all parties as problematic. You do not need to have as much empathy for an abuser as for the abused. The abuser already has far too much "empathy" and endless excuses for his or her own behavior. And they tend to be inconsistent justifications. You can prefer to convert all you like, but abusive power needs to be challenged...not empathized with...that is, if you are trying to stop the unjust harm. You end up justifying their abuse with your empathy. Do you empathize with serial killers?

And people are the problem. You cannot separate them from the structures that reward them for maintaining it.

[Cassius Clay]

Years back, I stopped obsessing over trying to see if people could be persuaded by an "absolute"(outside of personal bias) moral judgement when I realized that judgements ultimately come down to what is individually wanted/valued/preferred(which can vary among people)...you might even go further and keeping asking why you prefer a particular thing, but the answers must eventually end at "just because I like that". And, all moral judgement is based on shared preferences...and, when it comes to oppression, most people have the same basic shared preferences(like not wanting to be abused/harmed)...so I don't feel any self-righteousness in judging people that don't meet their own standards of what kind of treatment they expect from others(golden rule and all). How you are treated, whether you are harmed, what is "fair"...these things have objective/shared basis. So, it is baffling to me that you would feel you don't have any basis to judge such people(Unless you feel you are no different than they are in being inconsistent...so you feel you have no moral standing to judge. But, I also feel like I am inconsistent at times, but I guess my devotion to judging/improving myself gives me the moral ground to judge others equally). That you feel you need something more than that. If you don't want to be harmed, yet you harm others..that's enough for me to feel I have the right judge. I don't care if you don't believe you need to be consistent(Though, what happens a lot with abuse/oppression is that the abuser doesn't see their victim as human/worthy as he/she is...so harming their victims does not carry the same value as themselves being harmed. So, I don't mind judging those that don't see me or others as "worthy" as they are.). And If you don't care about being harmed, and you harm others...I guess that basis is out the window...but one can still defend one's self...but that is an absurd/unusual scenario. There is another aspect of how we determine what is "right" that should be considered when talking about oppression.

I had an insane argument with Eva about rape culture and victim-blaming a while back. He kept unwittingly defending victim-blaming while insisting he wasn't. I believe he was trying to say that advising women to not get too drunk, etc..was a good way to sort of "temporarily" deal with rape/rape culture...while simultaneously doing all the other necessary things for fighting rape culture(educating men, prosecuting rapists, etc).

He eventually laid out an argument that I found enlightening(but not for the reasons he intended). So, in a situation where a woman goes to a party, gets intoxicated, then is raped...if you strip all judgement of the situation, and you look at it strictly in terms of cause and effect...in terms of "just things happening"...one could say that if she did not go to the party...or if she did not get drunk...then the rapist wouldn't have had the opportunity to harm her. He was saying we could put all the blame on the rapist, while simultaneously admitting that it is a fact that the victim might have avoided it, if she was not too drunk...so she might have benefited from being advised not to get wasted at parties.

It is technically true that a victim would likely have avoided an assault if she didn't get wasted at a party...it is also technically true that a victim might lower their chances of being assaulted if they just never leave the house at all. But, that fact is completely irrelevant to the way a society collectively assigns responsibility...the way a society decides who is at fault..who is in the wrong...the way we decide who's actions need to be changed/punished. It is based on the collective values of the society. If everyone wants to live in a society where they aren't unnecessarily harmed by others when minding their own business, then the collective power of society decides that the burden of responsibility(responsibility being a personal judgement rooted in preferences/values) belongs to the one committing selfish and unnecessary harm...and they should be punished. It is arbitrary in the sense that we collectively say, "fuck neutral cause and effect...we will decide, based on our shared values, which causes MATTERED that led to the effect". You could always say that the victims actions technically were part of a series of causes, but how we determine who is responsible...who to blame...who to punish...is based on a collective desire to live in a society where we aren't unnecessarily under threat of harm.

The collective agreement that the actions of the victims are irrelevant is important for living in such a society. So, burden of responsibility is arbitrary in the sense that it is merely an "agreed upon" notion to focus on the actions of the perpetrator. To focus on/question the actions of the perpetrator is a necessary, preferential judgment...for a desired kind of society. That burden shifts when we focus on the actions of the victim. You cannot question the actions of the victims while simultaneously claiming to put the burden of responsibility solely on the perpetrator...it's a contradiction. And we see in our society that rape victim's actions consistently get questioned...this tells us that there is something irregular in society. This tells us that rapists, rape apologists, and men(who have little to no concerns about being raped) have too much collective power....the power to decide/influence/obscure where responsibility ought to lie(or to divide responsibility among victim and perpetrator equally). And where responsibility ought to lie is not something that exists independent of people's preferences. If men lived in as much fear of rape as women, they would take more steps to makes sure they didn't have to live in such a society(sharing more values/preferences with women), and you bet we would see no victim-blaming.

This is what I mean by power getting to determine/obscure what is collectively thought of as right/fair or who is in the wrong. We might all think/say rape is horrible, but you can see the kind of influence power has on how poorly we deal with rape. A society with gross imbalances of power....breeds different experiences...which breeds different preferences/needs/ideas about harm...is gonna have some fucked up ideas of right, fair, and responsibility.

That sense of being "right" or having a "right" to judge is also often predicated on social validation and backing. This is why I'm fascinated by people with a strong will(like Muhammad Ali) who insist on doing what they think is right when everyone is against them. And there was something I wanted to articulate about that, but I can't remember now. Maybe I will later.

[Islandmur]

Me I view things more simply... if it harms other it's wrong.
Taking for example killing babies for x y or z reasons... all are wrong because not only does the baby suffer so does their family. So what right do I have to alter someone else happiness for my own benefit? If you want to stick needles in your body tender parts and that makes you happy go for it.

If I admit that happiness is the main goal of my life, then I must concede that it''s the same for others.