In "Some Moral Minima," Lenn Goodman argues that there are certain things that are simply wrong. Do you think Goodman is right? Using specific examples, explore the challenges Goodman presents to relativism. Determine whether you think there are such universal moral requirements, and defend your answer in a well-argued three-page paper.
Lenn Goodman is correct that by modern legal and ethical standards, certain actions like murder, rape, genocide, wars of aggression, use of weapons of mass destruction, and slavery are always wrong. To be sure, they were widely practiced in the past and still exist in the present, but that still does not make them right, even when sanctioned by military, religious or political authorities. In modern times, especially since the Second World War, the definition of who is a human being has been expanded greatly, as have the rights guaranteed to all individuals under national at international law, regardless of race, religion, age, color, gender or sexual orientation. Therefore there can be no legal or moral justification for actions that deny equal rights and dignity to every person, as genocide, slavery, rape, incest, murder and torture obviously do. Other issues that he regards as violating the moral minima seem less clear cut, such as polygamy or terrorism, and might be more a matter of expediency or cultural and political relativism.
Slavery was widely practiced all over the world until the period of industrialization, and still exists today in one form or another, but this does not make it moral. As Abraham Lincoln once said, if slavery is not wrong then nothing is wrong, and this is truly qualifies as a moral minimum. By modern standards that regard each human being as possessing equal rights and dignity, slavery is evil and immoral because it reduces another person to the level of property, to be treated no better than tools, furniture or livestock. Whether this was acceptable 200 years ago—as clearly it was—or even if some societies may still regard it as acceptable, slavery is a complete violation of fundamental human rights.
Genocide has also been widely practiced in history, including against the indigenous peoples of the Americas, but once again, widespread practice or even popular support does not make an action moral. Goodman argues that “genocide is uglier than murder because it targets individuals as members of a group”, and targets people because of color, religion or ethnicity (Goodman, p. 88). Hitler and the Nazis had popular support in Germany, at least when they were winning the war, yet Nazi war criminals were still tried and executed after 1945 for crimes against humanity and war crimes. They had systematically violated international law concerning the treatment of civilians and prisoners of war, and had gassed, shot starved and worked millions of people to death. These actions were even against the law in Germany, not to mention all other nations, yet they were all done on Hitler’s orders. As the Nuremberg tribunals stated, obedience to superior orders as not a defense since the law presumes that each individual has a conscience and a moral sense, and one does not need to be a professor of ethics to know that these actions were wrong, no matter that they were ordered and sanctioned by the state authorities.
Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians in warfare, and has also been widely practiced throughout history, but once again this does not make it morally right. Goodman states that “terrorists explode the values they claim to fight for; their victims blood blurs and blots whatever ends were meant to justify the carnage” (Goodman, p. 89). Insurgents and guerillas also use civilians as a shield to launch their attacks against governments and military occupation forces. Industrialized nations also practice state terrorism, such as air attacks and carpet bombing that kill civilians. International law and morality, including the original Hague Convention and UN Convention on Human Rights do provide basic protections of civilian lives and property in wartime, and violations of these do constitute war crimes. Indeed, international law also forbids wars of aggression, although the rules in regard to civil wars and internal conflicts, which often involve guerillas and insurgents, are not so clear cut as those between states. Goodman is properly suspicious of all warfare in general, since it often tends to escalate into massive attacks on civilians and noncombatants, resulting in ‘collateral damage’ and great violations of human rights.
Overall, modern Western, liberal ideas about human rights and equality regardless of race, religion, color, ethnicity and gender have made great strides in the past 100 years, particularly as a result of the revulsion against the crimes of Nazi Germany. Even countries that violate universal rights, or practice genocide and slavery, often play lip service to them, and as usual hypocrisy is the compliment that vice pays to virtue. International law and the laws of most nations have enshrined basic human rights into a system of formal rules, and violators of them have been punished by war crimes tribunals. Wars of aggression have been considered an international crime since the Nuremberg tribunals, and international law and morality require that civilians and prisoners be protected in wartime. Naturally, governments and human beings will always fall short of these moral standards, but this does not negate their existence, either on the individual or collective level. On the other hand, values related to marriage, sexuality, abortion, and child rearing are often more controversial, and still fall under the auspices of religious and cultural relativism, although this may change as the rights of women and children become more universal.
REFERENCES
Goodman, L. E. (2010). “Some Moral Minima”. The Good Society, 19(1), 87-94.
