Quote:
|
I think we're dancing around the concept of "universal morality" vs "relativistic morality". I am on the relativistic side myself.
|
I suspect that there may be a way round that one. As I said before, one can see 'morality' or 'ethics' as conversational. So far as I know, all human groups have this kind of conversation. But not all human groups are putting, or have put, the same questions on the table at the same time.
There is no morality outside of conversation, outside of dialogue - like the dialogues we're having here. To expect there to be one, overarching, moral conversation that covers everyone, everywhere, and at all times, is absurd. There is, and cannot be, a universal moral code: if there were such a thing, then there would be no conversation. We'd be zombies.
Where does the conversation come in? Why claim that 'morality' is dialogical? Well, people who have observed how children's minds develop know that there is a stage at which the child talks to herself. Watch her playing with a toy, or working out a problem of any kind: she talks - not to you, not to anyone else in the room with you, but in a conversational tone that implies the existence of a conversational partner.
In fact, you will sometimes notice that the child switches roles: she may speak in one voice for herself, and in another for her doll, for example. She will talk to her doll in her mother's voice, using the same kind of injunctions, suggestions and comments that her mother often uses with her.
Then, at some stage, the child ceases to do this. At this point, the conversation has become internalized. The mother - and other significant people in the child's life - have become incorporated. The conversation is now fully internal.
We continue these internal conversations all our lives. Some of them are purely technical: how to do this, that or the other. Others are moral: judgements about behaviour, our own and that of others. We enlarge them, to take in others. But the conversations are always embedded in social relationships, whether real or imagined. They are always local.
Because of this, the attempt to distinguish between local and universal is bound to fail. When we attempt to posit a universal rule, or to identify a universal basis for rules, we are stepping outside the realm of the possible.