George Saad is quite mistaken about the causes or effects of the ennui that he claims affect the majority of students at the U of C (“It’s All Relative,” 11/17/09). It is not a result of relativism, a term with multiple meanings which Saad conflates, nor is it the result of skepticism, an attitude that we should all take in evaluating claims of universal truth. Quite simply, every student at the U of C learns both necessary and contingent absolute truths—the necessary ones in the math class, and the contingent ones in the science classes.
The concept of moral certainty that Saad claims is the correct position to take is very troublesome. He insists that vices and virtues are real, but offers no way to know them, see them, or interact with them. I know the physical world exists because I can sense it. Can we sense moral values in the same way? Given the extent to which birth control is opposed by religious figures in the United States, I think the answer is no. Can we have a legitimate moral belief that abortion is wrong? The Pope, who is no intellectual slacker, has such a position. Can we have a legitimate moral belief that abortion is in some circumstances mandated? The Talmud, again a product of thousands of years of debate, says that abortion is mandatory to protect the mother, and is almost never a sin. Someone must be wrong here if we are to take the realist position.
Relativism does not mean that all ideas are created equal. Rather it asks that we evaluate each idea identically, asking about its foundation and consequences. Is this not a way to attain the truth that Saad claims exists? And if we see that two beliefs are incompatible, but both potentially true, is it not better to pick one honestly than to conceal this fact in sophistry?
This does not lead to a destruction of the capacity of interpersonal relationships, nor does it exempt us from actively considering our ideas. It is the blind certainty of Saad that destroys curiosity and exploration, and will ultimately be futile.
Watson Ladd
Class of 2013
watson, why do you hate freedom?
In philosophy, skepticism does not mean simply “thinking critically” — it denotes the belief that no one can know anything for certain. The latter is what Saad was criticizing, and the context of his article makes it clear that he was not criticizing critical thinking.
“The concept of moral certainty that Saad claims is the correct position to take is very troublesome.”
Moral certainty is “troublesome”? Are you certain?
“He insists that vices and virtues are real, but offers no way to know them, see them, or interact with them.”
There’s only so much that can be done in a newspaper editorial. It makes more sense to criticize such a work for what it says, rather than what it does not.
“I know the physical world exists because I can sense it. Can we sense moral values in the same way?”
To identify a correct morality requires deeper cognition than simple perception. One must take one’s perceptions and analyze them to discover what kinds of situations are beneficial to human beings and which ones are harmful. The answer to this investigation is not instinctively obvious, which is why there is such diversity of opinion on the matter. But diversity of opinion does not make an issue subjective. What harms a person harms him, regardless of his or my opinion on the matter. It is an objective fact that awaits discovery.
“Relativism does not mean that all ideas are created equal. Rather it asks that we evaluate each idea identically, asking about its foundation and consequences.”
This is as unique a definition of “relativism” as I’ve ever seen. It appears to be a classic example of redefining a word to mean something obviously good (in this case, critical thinking), in order to smuggle hidden connotations. Relativism as everyone else uses the word denotes a belief that all facts and values depend on one’s perspective. This is in contrast to objectivism, which says that facts are what they are regardless of one’s perspective, with morality being a species of fact (see above).
“It is the blind certainty of Saad that destroys curiosity and exploration, and will ultimately be futile.”
Real certainty is not and cannot be blind. What blinds us is the kind of irrational doubt that Saad illudes to. The belief that no one can know anything for certain keeps people blind to what they can in fact know for certain, and that blindness is then projected onto anyone who claims certainty of anything beyond brute sense perception. After all, if we could never really know anything for sure, what would be the point of curiosity and exploration?
Well put, Jennifer.
As for Watson, get your facts straight. Making arguments against the article is one thing, but totally misunderstanding it is another.
Jennifer Wrote: “There’s only so much that can be done in a newspaper editorial. It makes more sense to criticize such a work for what it says, rather than what it does not.”
That’s like saying “WMDs are BAD” but never asking “Does Saddam actually have them?” because “It makes more sense to criticize such a work [e.g. speech by GW] for what it says, rather than what it does not [e.g. unreliability of evidence].”