Ethical Relativism and Absolute Taboos - Part II
IV. Race
Social Darwinism, sociobiology, and, nowadays, evolutionary
psychology are all derided and disparaged because they try to
prove that nature - more specifically, our genes - determine our
traits, our accomplishments, our behavior patterns, our social
status, and, in many ways, our destiny. Our upbringing and our
environment change little. They simply select from ingrained
libraries embedded in our brain.
Moreover, the discussion of race and race relations is tainted
by a history of recurrent ethnocide and genocide and thwarted by
the dogma of egalitarianism. The (legitimate) question "are all
races equal" thus becomes a private case of the (no less
legitimate) "are all men equal". To ask "can races co-exist
peacefully" is thus to embark on the slippery slope to slavery
and Auschwitz. These historical echoes and the overweening
imposition of political correctness prevent any meaningful - let
alone scientific - discourse.
The irony is that "race" - or at least race as determined by
skin color - is a distinctly unscientific concept, concerned
more with appearances (i.e., the color of one's skin, the shape
of one's head or hair), common history, and social politics -
than with heredity. Most human classificatory traits are not
concordant. Different taxonomic criteria conjure up different
"races". IQ is a similarly contentious construct, although it is
stable and does predict academic achievement effectively.
Thus, racist-sounding claims are as unfounded as claims about
racial equality. Still, while the former are treated as an
abomination - the latter are accorded academic respectability
and scientific scrutiny.
Consider these two hypotheses:
That the IQ (or any other measurable trait) of a given race or
ethnic group is hereditarily determined (i.e., that skin color
and IQ - or another measurable trait - are concordant) and is
strongly correlated with certain types of behavior, life
accomplishments, and social status. That the IQ (or any other
quantifiable trait) of a given race or "ethnic group" is the
outcome of social and economic circumstances and even if
strongly correlated with behavior patterns, academic or other
achievements, and social status - which is disputable - is
amenable to "social engineering". Both theories are falsifiable
and both deserve serious, unbiased, study. That we choose to
ignore the first and substantiate the second demonstrates the
pernicious and corrupting effect of political correctness.
Claims of the type "trait A and trait B are concordant" should
be investigated by scientists, regardless of how politically
incorrect they are. Not so claims of the type "people with trait
A are..." or "people with trait A do...". These should be
decried as racist tripe.
Thus, medical research shows the statement "The traits of being
an Ashkenazi Jew (A) and suffering from Tay-Sachs induced idiocy
(B) are concordant in 1 of every 2500 cases" is true.
The statements "people who are Jews (i.e., with trait A) are
(narcissists)", or "people who are Jews (i.e., with trait A) do
this: they drink the blood of innocent Christian children during
the Passover rites" - are vile racist and paranoid statements.
People are not created equal. Human diversity - a taboo topic -
is a cause for celebration. It is important to study and
ascertain what are the respective contributions of nature and
nurture to the way people - individuals and groups - grow,
develop, and mature. In the pursuit of this invaluable and
essential knowledge, taboos are dangerously counter-productive.
V. Moral Relativism
Protagoras, the Greek Sophist, was the first to notice that
ethical codes are culture-dependent and vary in different
societies, economies, and geographies. The pragmatist believe
that what is right is merely what society thinks is right at any
given moment. Good and evil are not immutable. No moral
principle - and taboos are moral principles - is universally and
eternally true and valid. Morality applies within cultures but
not across them.
But ethical or cultural relativism and the various schools of
pragmatism ignore the fact that certain ethical percepts -
probably grounded in human nature - do appear to be universal
and ancient. Fairness, veracity, keeping promises, moral
hierarchy - permeate all the cultures we have come to know. Nor
can certain moral tenets be explained away as mere expressions
of emotions or behavioral prescriptions - devoid of cognitive
content, logic, and a relatedness to certain facts.
Still, it is easy to prove that most taboos are, indeed,
relative. Incest, suicide, feticide, infanticide, parricide,
ethnocide, genocide, genital mutilation, social castes, and
adultery are normative in certain cultures - and strictly
proscribed in others. Taboos are pragmatic moral principles.
They derive their validity from their efficacy. They are
observed because they work, because they yield solutions and
provide results. They disappear or are transformed when no
longer useful.
Incest is likely to be tolerated in a world with limited
possibilities for procreation. Suicide is bound to be encouraged
in a society suffering from extreme scarcity of resources and
over-population. Ethnocentrism, racism and xenophobia will
inevitably rear their ugly heads again in anomic circumstances.
None of these taboos is unassailable.
None of them reflects some objective truth, independent of
culture and circumstances. They are convenient conventions,
workable principles, and regulatory mechanisms - nothing more.
That scholars are frantically trying to convince us otherwise -
or to exclude such a discussion altogether - is a sign of the
growing disintegration of our weakening society.