Objective Truths ...

Woohoo, 100 posts!  And to commemorate it, I've come up with a name for the blog.  Maybe it'll change, but, you know, I quite like it right now.  I also changed the bio.  I think I know more where the blog is headed at the moment, even if it's going to get there very, very slowly. 

So, the subject of subjective and objective truths has been on my mind recently, particularly with regard to ethics.  It's come up in a few conversations I've been having, but I also think it is a fascinating and fundamentally important topic.     

At first, the idea of subjective morality is an appealing one.  Broad, black and white statements, such as "murder is wrong" don't seem to capture the complexity of the subject of ethics, and, furthermore, what makes, say, polygamy, wrong if the people participating think it is right?         

A little deeper, though, and it is a problematic concept.     

If Hume, Firth, and the popular notion of cultural relativism are correct, then it was, indeed, wrong to be homosexual in the 1800s.  Female circumcision is acceptable, because it is in keeping with the norms of the culture in which it takes place.  Furthermore, honor killings are the right thing to do, if you happen to be a member of a culture which condones them.                   

Furthermore, there is the question of whether one culture has the right to impose its ethics on another, as a matter of morality.  I've often heard the incredible brutality with which the Japanese treated POWs in WWII defended with the statement that "it was their culture.  They thought that death was preferable to the dishonor of surrender."           
I've equally often heard America criticized for trying to export democracy, because some cultures just don't want it (more on this later ... ). 

So, not only is it a theory with many challenging circumstances to account for, it's also one which contradicts itself.                         

I've decided that I think the single, concrete moral truth is that you never have the right to intentionally deprive other people of their rights, except to prevent them from doing so to you or others.     

Obviously, this must be qualified, too.  I think it should be clear that intentionally overcompensating in your defense of threatened rights counts as an initiation of taking away other people's rights, making you morally culpable.  Rights means the right to live, and to do anything as long as you are not violating the above rule.  Also, any acts to prevent rights removal, defensive actions, must be aimed solely at the person attempting to take away the rights, with the sole intention of stopping those actions.     

It is around that truth that everything else must be built.  For instance, I do believe that people have a responsibility to help people who can't take care of themselves, but they do not have the right to force other people to do so.  Polygamy only becomes wrong if any of the parties isn't knowing or willing, and honor killings only become right if the person to be killed, her(in most cases)self states that she wants that (highly likely, isn't it?).               

This also has implications for politics.     

I've heard this argument before, many times, but today I was reading a book about Belarus, Belarusian culture, and Belarusian politics.  The author defends the authoritarian system of government in Belarus, saying that it has a lot of benefits, and that it is widely accepted.  Culturally, he argues that Belarusians would rather have economic prosperity than freedom.  Well, most of them would, anyway.  He also criticizes western attempts to democratize the country, saying that attempts to "enlighten" the people about the advantages of democracy are misguided.                     

And shouldn't people have the right to be under an authoritarian government if they want to?     

The answer to that is yes, but ... 

The people of the government do not have the right to take away the rights of any member of the population of the country, except for defense purposes.       

Essentially that means that people have the right to want an authoritarian style of government, but that government does not have the moral right to exist (unless, of course, it exists without taking away the rights of any member of the population, except for defense purposes).             

(It has a lot more implications than that, obviously, and I don't advocate the west intervening in Belarus, partially because, according to the rule, that would mean that western governments were forcing their citizens to participate in such endeavors, which is wrong.).