Contextual Morality Vs Contextual Morality?

[BNeptune]

I'm pretty new to Objectivism. I've read The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, We the Living, and Ominous Parallels. I'm about to order Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand (which I regret not reading sooner) and the Objectivism Research CD. I'm not going to pretend to completely understand Objectivism, but up until a few days ago I hadn't come across anything that I disagree with.

My friend and I had been talking about morality (prior to my reading the majority of the books listed) and he said that morality is completely contextual. If, say, a nazi killed a hundred jews during the holocaust, it was moral because he was acting under what the German society at the time considered to be moral. In the context of that society, during that time period, what the nazi did was right. However, if an American during that time killed a hundred jews, it would have been utterly immoral because American society considered it immoral.

From that point on, that's what I considered to be "contextual morality". I had thought that Objectivism said there are objective moral standards (I don't know how to phrase that correctly), but after going through some of these threads I find references to morality depending primarily (only?) on the context of the situation. If I need links to support my claims, I can supply them in a later post, though I don't think it's necessary to answer my question.

I think that this is just a confusion of terms. I'm not even sure "contextual morality" is what it is in either case. It's what my friend called it, anyway. Does my friend's definition of the term contextual just differ from what an Objectivist would consider contextual? I think that this is just a misunderstanding.

Where, by the way, can I find text that deals with this issue? I mentioned I'm getting the Objectivism Research CD, so if someone could point me to an area that covers this, I'd be appreciative.

Edited March 19, 2006 by BNeptune

[Spano]

The basic error in the argument you presented is that morality is not determined by what most people in society think. Objectivism holds that morality is objectively derived from the nature of man and the requirements of his life, and that all actions must be judged by this standard. For example, a man needs to be left free of physical coercion in order to live successfully. Thus, he has a right to his life which cannot be morally taken from him - regardless of whether or not the majority of people support killing him.

You will understand this point after reading OPAR, and I'd also suggest reading "The Objectivist Ethics" and "Man's Rights" in The Virtue of Selfishness.

[Maarten]

It is true that Objectivism holds knowledge (including that about morality) as contextual. This doesn't mean that there is no basis for determining right and wrong, and that it becomes merely subjective. Context, in its broadest meaning, is the sum of everything you know to be true (if I remember correctly). Because truth is based on the recognition of reality, it doesn't mean that it depends on what people at the time think. This is the error of placing men above one's perception of reality.

The objective standard of morality is man's life qua man, and one of its aspects is that because man's life requires the uncompromised usage of his mind the initiation of force is the basic vice (because you can't force someone to think, thinking is something done by the individual). In the example that you gave there is most definately initiation of force, and taking someone's life like that is immoral.

But like Spano said, in OPAR and VoS there is a much more detailed discussion about this subject. I can especially recommend OPAR; it helped me enormously in integrating various aspects of the philosophy. It can be quite difficult to do that from just reading essays about certain subjects. It was very useful to see the philosophy discussed in a systematic manner, starting at the fundamentals and moving up to the last conclusions.

[Hal]

Contextualism in Objectivist ethics is essentially the claim that you cant formulate timeless universal moral laws like "Killing is Wrong"; you have to form your judgements based on the details of the specific situation at hand (contrast this with the absolutism of Christian or Kantian moral philosophy to see the difference). This doesnt, however, imply that all possible judgements of a particular situation are equivalent, which is what your friend seems to be using 'contextualism' to mean.

Edited March 19, 2006 by Hal

[Maarten]

It's basically moral relativism what he's advocating.

[JMeganSnow]

I think that this is just a confusion of terms. I'm not even sure "contextual morality" is what it is in either case. It's what my friend called it, anyway. Does my friend's definition of the term contextual just differ from what an Objectivist would consider contextual? I think that this is just a misunderstanding.

As others have pointed out, your friend is not using context in the sense that we use it. Our context is the details of the specific real-life situation you are in. His context is the blindly accepted ideas of whatever men happen to surround him at any particular moment. His idea is not that morality is contextual, but that it is relative and thus subjective.

Ask an Objectivist what he thinks about any given situation and you will be asked numerous questions about details, because Objectivists know that the more you know, the better (and more accurate) your judgment can be. A relativist or, weirdly, an intrinsicistwill both seize upon one single, isolated concrete (the man's a Jew!) and use that single thing to determine their answer. The one looks at reality, the other detaches himself from it as much as possible.

[Capitalism Forever]

Contextualism in Objectivist ethics is essentially the claim that you cant formulate timeless universal moral laws like "Killing is Wrong"

You can formulate timeless, universal moral "laws," except that you'll have to take into account the context in which they were formulated when applying them.

Example:

Timeless, universal moral "law" : Don't run red lights.

Context: Normal driving conditions, say in New York City.

Change to context: An ambulance is behind you with its sirens on and the only way to let it past you is to drive through a red light.

What a dogmatist would do: "It is immoral to run red lights, therefore I'll make the ambulance wait until it turns green."

What an Objectivist would do: "The immorality of running red lights is based on the context of normal driving conditions, so it is not applicable in my current situation. I'll carefully drive into the intersection, look around, and cross at the first safe opportunity."

[Hal]

A law which had to have the context it was formulated in taken into account wouldnt be 'universal'. A universal law, by definition, applies everywhere, at all times (eg the Kantian categoral imperiative)

Edited March 19, 2006 by Hal

[BNeptune]

If there's no such thing as a "timeless, universal moral law", then does that mean that there is a situation where it is moral to initiate force? For example, if someone threatens you with the initiation of force (I think I might have answered my own question)?

Edited March 19, 2006 by BNeptune

[Maarten]

If someone threatens you, and the evidence seems to suggest that he can back it up then you can defend yourself, but that is not an initiation of force.

[DavidOdden]

If there's no such thing as a "timeless, universal moral law", then does that mean that there is a situation where it is moral to initiate force? For example, if someone threatens you with the initiation of force (I think I might have answered my own question)?

That isn't the initiation of force, it is the use of defensive force. You would be slightly better off with a lifeboat scenario, where you must kill in order to survive, but such situations are outside the scope of morality. A better first step would be to look at the roots of morality, which is about you, and not others. Part of morality is determining what you should do, with respect to others, but that is just a specific instance of the question "what should I do"?

[dondigitalia]

If there's no such thing as a "timeless, universal moral law", then does that mean that there is a situation where it is moral to initiate force? For example, if someone threatens you with the initiation of force (I think I might have answered my own question)?

To frame it in a way that will highlight your initial question:

Acontextual: Force is bad.

Contextual: Initiation of force is bad.

It is never ok to initiate force, because initiation is the context which makes force immoral. If that context changes to retaliation or defense (against forceful action), it is immoral to not use force.

[Capitalism Forever]

A law which had to have the context it was formulated in taken into account wouldnt be 'universal'. A universal law, by definition, applies everywhere, at all times (eg the Kantian categoral imperiative)

OK, if that's what you mean by "universal," then I agree that there is no such thing.

But "Don't run red lights" IS timeless and universal in the sense that whenever you find yourself in a situation like the one you formulated it in--in whichever century, on whatever planet--you'll know that you shouldn't run the red light, or whatever kind of signal is used in its place.

In other words, "Times are a-changin'" is not an excuse for evading morality.