- Reposted from May 12, 2005
Voegeli on "Values" vs. Morals
Morality is a distinctly unfashionable subject. Nothing fun about it, I guess, and I guess life in the USA has become about fun and self-gratification and "fulfillment" - ie the religion of Self - instead of about being solid grown-ups. Perpetual adolescents instead of Atticus Finches. Sometimes I feel like Rip van Winkle, waking up to a world in which all that is sacred and deep has been replaced by neon lights. Many would rather talk about "values" or "ethics" than about morals. As I see it, we'd all like an escape clause from being bound by morality, me included. And yes, I have had my stumbles too - but I haven't been able to let myself rationalize them. In this piece, Voegeli addresses the politics of absolutism and relativism. Tough subject. Made me re-think what people are really saying when they say "That's a value judgement." Good, thoughtful piece. Wish I had written it:
"The term "values" has become so widely used as a synonym for "moral beliefs" that it is hard to remember the term has a history. Though Max Weber did not invent the fact-value distinction, his profound influence on American social scientists caused them to promote the idea here after World War II. They insisted that their study of society was scientific because it was confined to statements of fact, which could be empirically verified or disproven, differentiating such statements from "value-judgments." "Values" were irrational, subjective personal preferences. Because value-judgments could not be tested, none could be described as true or false, much less as wise or foolish, or good or evil. A debate between people with opposed views about the meaning of justice would as pointless as a debate between people with different favorite flavors of ice cream.
The fact-value distinction has swept all before it. It's hard to find any American who doesn't speak the language of values and value-judgments, or who understands that this distinction is a recent innovation, one never employed before the last century and incomprehensible or ludicrous in any age but our own."
Read entire.
---------- Maggie's Farm links us to a Claremont Institute article by William Voegeli, who allows a trio of liberals enough rope to hang themselves. Mr. Voegeli explains the distortion introduced by our contemporary, artificial distinction between values and moral beliefs and, in doing so, shows that what purports to be scientific is nothing more than moral relativism. For additional discussion of the points he raises, see: Why Liberals Can't Compete…
Tracked: May 13, 01:04