moral relativism again

frequently, the lower the stakes are, the more ridiculous people become. take philosophy. no one cares about this stuff--yet if philosophers were to be believed, you'd think the whole world was waiting on bated breath for us to figure out anything. the way i look at it, philosophy is not in the business of changing the world, and doesn't have much of a responsibility to describe it correctly (although that helps). philosophy is fun. that's why i keep coming back. if you're into this stuff b.c. you think arriving at the "correct" understanding of the big questions is going to make the world a better place, i humbly suggest becoming involved in something else: medicine, science, counseling, ministry, law, social work, art, journalism. anything else really.

despite philosophy's general commitment to uselessness and irrelevance, people occasionally seem to come to the conclusion that philosophy is the source of various troubles and problems. you know what i'm talking about: "the west's problems are rooted in the teaching of post-modern theory in the humanities." are you serious? i can think of plenty of reasons why things might not be going so well around these parts, but derrida is certainly not one of them (as much as i wish he was so i could have more of a reason to dislike him). oh well. as jesus would probably be able to tell you, everyone needs a scape-goat.

the reason why i'm bringing all of this up is that i was watching the daily show the other night, and sam harris was on there promoting his new book. according to him, moral relativism is a problem. it's preventing us from being able to look at places like afghanistan and, without any reservation, condemn whatever it is they're doing over there as backwards and unenlightened. again: seriously? what planet are these people living on? how many moral relativists even exist? there's me, but i rarely leave the house, and when i do i'm rarely sober. your problems in afghanistan have very little to do with people like me telling 4 or 5 friends that we think morality is contextual, and a lot more to do with everyone else misunderstanding how war, bullets, and "hearts & minds" seem to work.

sorry, sam, but people like me just don't matter. you failed b.c. you are not very good at what you do. you don't seem to realize that simply aspiring to make war cohere with enlightenment notions of progress and human rights doesn't miraculously make that the case. moral certainty only makes you more certain, not more competent.

+mc