December 12, 2014

#BattleFest2014: Our morals, their moralism?

1 hour 14 minutes

The charge of ‘moralism’ or ‘moralising’ is

always complicated. Nobody endorses immorality, we all know the

difference between moralism and morality. Or do we? The former implies

an unattractive self-righteousness; the latter is ‘the real thing’. But

without righteousness, does morality have any meaning? The obvious

danger with rejecting moralism is that we abandon any attempt to talk

about right and wrong. Indeed, contemporary culture seems uncomfortable

with the language of morality. Terms like good, bad, right, wrong,

should, should not, duty and obligation are often seen as moralistic

‘tut tutting’ that unfairly stigmatises people.

To some extent, the kinds of moral judgements that are acceptable or

not change with the times, such as attitudes to slavery or eugenics. But

do changing moral norms always reflect more enlightened attitudes, or

just changing prejudices? For example, is the routine denigration of

those who embrace traditional ideas of morality any more than a new form

of ‘moralising’? Earlier this year, UK Supreme Court judge Lord Wilson

of Culworth declared that the nuclear family had been replaced by a

‘blended’ variety, and that Christian teaching on the family has been

‘malign’. Paradoxically, though, something like homosexuality was not

only once considered immoral and now seen as fine; one’s attitude to it

has become a marker of one’s own moral standing: ‘enlightened’ or

‘bigoted’. The intriguing result is that those who still frown on

homosexuality might well protest against the ‘moralism’ of those who

condemn them, while the latter retort that some moral judgements are

beyond debate.

In other cases, moral etiquette changes for seemingly more fickle

reasons. While judgementalism about sexual mores is ostensibly frowned

on, the intense moral reaction that followed recent allegations of

historic sexual offences seemed to go beyond particular crimes to

condemn old-fashioned attitude to sex, and even the past itself. Or take

the sphere of public health, in which medics and politicians cite ‘the

science’ while engaging in what otherwise looks like a moral crusade to

change attitudes to what we eat, drink or smoke, showing a remarkable

willingness to tell others what they can and cannot do, or else. The

zealousness of those policing behaviour in relation to lifestyle choices

points to another apparent contradiction in today’s moral landscape. If

religious moral values are seen as too narrow, we seem less troubled by

formalised norms dictated by rigid codes of conduct, ethics committees,

or ‘you can’t say that’ speech rules, the last of which cast certain

words as morally reprehensible, and dubs those who may utter them as

beyond the pale.

Such discrepancies are hard to explain rationally, perhaps because

they have less to do with individual or collective moral judgements than

with moral ‘fashion’. So is it possible to engage in serious moral

debate that avoids both self-righteous groupthink and relativistic

indifference? Are morals best left to individuals, or is there a place

for ‘intelligent moralising’?

Speakers

Dr Hannah Dawson

historian of ideas, New College of the Humanities; author, Life Lessons from Hobbes

Kenan Malik

writer and broadcaster; author, From Fatwa to Jihad and The Quest for a Moral Compass

Alister McGrath

Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion, University of Oxford

Chair

Dolan Cummings

associate fellow, Institute of Ideas; editor, Debating Humanism; co-founder, Manifesto Club

...more

View all episodes

By academyofideas

3.9

77 ratings