Bản chép lời đầy đủ của Mini Ethic-sode #4: Ethical Relativism, Central Capabilities, and L'Wxana Troi

00:05:20.560 --> 00:05:23.279 This seems honestly pretty self-evident. 00:05:23.600 --> 00:05:29.199 You mean, wait, not everyone has the same ethical system or deeply held values? 00:05:29.600 --> 00:05:33.360 Stop the presses, alert the Navy, call the new dog times. 00:05:33.759 --> 00:05:34.800 No, this makes sense. 00:05:35.040 --> 00:05:46.879 Descriptive relativism just allows us to say, all right, whether it's right or not, it looks like we've got people who make decisions based on different moral codes and concepts. 00:05:47.279 --> 00:05:53.600 Normative relativism takes this situation and says, people have different moral codes, and you know what? 00:05:53.759 --> 00:05:55.920 It's good and right that they do. 00:05:56.079 --> 00:06:04.959 How could we possibly have eight billion people on one planet and not have some diversity or disagreement about what the most important things are? 00:06:05.199 --> 00:06:08.480 We can also call this meta-ethical relativism. 00:06:08.720 --> 00:06:14.240 Meta-ethical is just a fancy philosophy word that means from the broadest point of view. 00:06:14.480 --> 00:06:22.720 When we zoom out as far as we can go, we realize that there just isn't any hard and fast rule for any kind of conduct. 00:06:22.959 --> 00:06:30.000 Everyone in every different culture and community is creating their own codes of conduct to try to do the best they can. 00:06:30.079 --> 00:06:34.480 And there's no moral math out there that proves one more right than the other. 00:06:34.720 --> 00:06:38.319 We can talk about strong and weak relativisms. 00:06:38.560 --> 00:06:44.480 That is, how far that relativism asks us to stretch our idea of moral action. 00:06:44.639 --> 00:06:58.160 So the 19th-century Prussian philologist, Friedrich Nietzsche, would advocate for a very strong relativism that makes it very difficult to find common moral ground across cultures, or even from person to person. 00:06:58.240 --> 00:07:03.759 Hence, we might also call a strong form of relativism an individual relativism. 00:07:03.920 --> 00:07:12.319 This person has made up their own mind for what their moral precepts are, and they aren't letting any other social or cultural influences have the last word. 00:07:12.399 --> 00:07:16.480 And if you know anything about Nietzsche, well, yeah, that just kind of sounds like him. 00:07:16.639 --> 00:07:20.399 I'm sure we'll hear a lot more from him in a future episode. 00:07:22.480 --> 00:07:32.480 Alright, you say, but don't different cultures across time kind of show that there's some stuff that just seems important to everybody, or at least to most people? 00:07:32.720 --> 00:07:38.639 Well, maybe respecting the elderly, or not making children fight in wars, or not torturing people. 00:07:38.800 --> 00:07:54.319 There might be some examples of communities or cultures not quite agreeing with these, but in general, we can find folks from all eras of human history that would agree pretty strongly with something

like don't steal something that is someone else's, like their food or their life. 00:07:54.639 --> 00:08:00.000 This cultural relativism is what we might call a weak relativism. 00:08:00.160 --> 00:08:05.600 So-called not because it's weak or bad, but because the relativism isn't all the way. 00:08:05.839 --> 00:08:13.920 That is, there are still some points that aren't completely fixed, but they seem relatively clear to a lot of people, regardless of their position. 00:08:14.079 --> 00:08:24.079 It does still cause us a problem because simply describing the different ways that cultures value these things doesn't solve what happens when they interact with each other. 00:08:24.240 --> 00:08:33.200 Some cultures regulate dignity for the life of others by applying laws severely restricting your ability to take someone else's life without heavy consequences. 00:08:33.360 --> 00:08:42.159 But other cultures might do this through extra-legal mores and traditions that may appear confusing, contradictory, or maybe even worse than the original problem. 00:08:42.639 --> 00:08:57.279 For example, in the ancient Near East, or what I often like to refer to as Bible times, there were often cultural traditions that influenced what would happen to someone who had been wronged or experienced injustice or tragedy. 00:08:57.440 --> 00:08:58.480 So let's have a brief. 00:09:13.279 --> 00:09:19.600 In ancient Hebrew cultures, there was what was known as a Goel, or sometimes Goel Hadam. 00:09:19.759 --> 00:09:33.440 Careful listeners might hear L in here and think that this word is related to the word L, which in ancient Near Eastern languages like Ugaritic, Hebrew, and Aramaic often refers to God or some other similar powerful entity. 00:09:33.600 --> 00:09:34.639 But this is a trick. 00:09:34.799 --> 00:09:40.480 Instead, this is a word that comes from the verb gaal, which means to buy back. 00:09:40.639 --> 00:09:50.480 And the L is what happens when that verb, an action, gets turned into a word for the occurrence of the action or the one doing the action, a participle. 00:09:50.720 --> 00:09:55.120 So a goel is the one who buys back or redeems. 00:09:55.279 --> 00:10:00.320 And a goel hadam is one who redeems their kin or their family member. 00:10:00.480 --> 00:10:03.120 We see this in the ancient biblical story of Ruth. 00:10:03.360 --> 00:10:25.840 Because Ruth's husband, Elimelech, died without having any children with Ruth, it was Boaz's responsibility, not just to his society and to Ruth, but to God as well, to take care of Ruth, to buy back the land of her families that was sold, and to provide her deceased husband with an heir that would functionally be of Elimelech's line, not Boaz's. 00:10:26.080 --> 00:10:28.320 To us, this may seem really weird. 00:10:28.559 --> 00:10:34.480 You mean the way to take care of a widow was to be forced to have a child with her that wouldn't be yours? 00:10:34.720 --> 00:10:36.320 What if you already had a family? 00:10:36.559 --> 00:10:37.919 What if she doesn't like you? 00:10:38.080 --> 00:10:40.320 What if she doesn't really want kids in the first place? 00:10:40.559 --> 00:10:46.639 This does feel like it kind of squishes up against some other deeply held values that we have in our culture. 00:10:46.799 --> 00:10:54.720 But for ancient Near Eastern cultures, these considerations were subordinate to caring for the widow and for the deceased husband's bloodline. 00:10:55.039 --> 00:11:05.039 In fact, the ancient Hebrews took it so seriously that earlier in the Bible in Genesis, a guy named Onan is supposed to act as a goel for his deceased kin. 00:11:05.200 --> 00:11:16.480 But knowing the child wouldn't be quote unquote his, he intentionally failed to impregnate his brother's wife, and because of this, the biblical account says that God put him to death. 00:11:16.799 --> 00:11:20.000 Okay, back to our conversation on relativism. 00:11:20.159 --> 00:11:24.080 We're stuck a little bit on this problem of descriptive relativism. 00:11:24.320 --> 00:11:29.679 It seems that there are different moral systems across cultures, but what do we do about that? 00:11:29.840 --> 00:11:31.600 Do we just stay out of everyone's way? 00:11:31.759 --> 00:11:33.679 Do we never interact with another culture? 00:11:33.919 --> 00:11:39.039 Do people from another country get a pass on laws and customs of the place that they're in? 00:11:39.279 --> 00:11:50.240 Well, one important example of trying to approach this problem of translating values across cultures is American philosopher Martha Nussbaum's ideas of central capabilities. 00:11:50.480 --> 00:11:58.240 I think it's really cool to talk about central capabilities because Nussbaum is the somewhat rare example of a notable philosopher who is still alive. 00:11:58.399 --> 00:11:58.639 Dr. 00:11:58.720 --> 00:12:13.120 Nussbaum is the author of the 2011 book Creating Capabilities, The Human Development Approach, in which she tries to nail down what are some of the things that all humans, no matter where or when they live, have in common. 00:12:13.360 --> 00:12:23.279 Nussbaum uses these central capabilities to try to form rational approaches to how we should act and what responsibilities humans have across cultures. 00:12:23.519 --> 00:12:33.919 Interestingly, by doing this, Nussbaum is actually trying to find a way out of a descriptive relativism that makes us just shrug and say, oh well, looks like everyone has a different moral compass. 00:12:34.159 --> 00:12:48.159 Instead, she offers her capabilities approach as a kind of foil to a relativism that is ambivalent about what we actually are able to do about apparent inequities that appear as a result of our ethical differences. 00:12:48.399 --> 00:13:06.559 Instead, we can use the capabilities approach as a way of trying to translate situations that might look fundamentally different on their face in order to get an idea of what might be a morally upright action or

intervention in an ethical dilemma involving multiple, possibly conflicting perspectives. 00:13:08.240 --> 00:13:18.559 The capabilities approach can be provisionally defined as an approach to comparative quality of life assessment and to theorizing about basic social justice. 00:13:18.799 --> 00:13:30.080 It holds that the key question to ask when comparing societies and assessing them for their basic decency or justice is what is each person able to do and to be? 00:13:30.399 --> 00:13:40.960 In other words, the approach takes each person as an end, asking not just about the total or average well-being, but about the opportunities available to each person. 00:13:41.679 --> 00:13:50.960 Nussbaum's capabilities include life, bodily health and integrity, emotions, relationships with other species, and even play. 00:13:51.200 --> 00:14:02.879 The point of identifying these isn't to make a set of ideas that every human agrees on, but rather to think about the kinds of things that all humans are capable of doing in community. 00:14:03.120 --> 00:14:20.720 When we realize that different human communities all tend to have different ideas of what life means to them, we can understand that while some particular cultures might honor life generally by preserving it, others might honor it by having very prescriptive rituals or norms about how it ends. 00:14:20.960 --> 00:14:23.440 Let's dive into our case study. 00:14:24.559 --> 00:14:33.679 Laboxana Troy is the mother of an officer on the USS Enterprise and an important diplomat from her world of BetaZ. 00:14:34.159 --> 00:14:43.120 While visiting the Enterprise, she takes a fancy to another visitor, a being named Timison, who hails from the reclusive world of K-Lon 2. 00:14:43.279 --> 00:14:49.759 Timison has been helping the crew of the Enterprise workshop solutions for the sun that K-Lon 2 orbits. 00:14:49.919 --> 00:14:58.080 It's dying, and if drastic action isn't taken, it will die and explode, taking along with it the entire Kalon civilization. 00:14:58.320 --> 00:15:09.679 Fascinatingly, the ethical dilemma in this episode of Star Trek The Next Generation is not about the survival of the Kalon species, but about the survival of one particular Kalon, Timison. 00:15:10.080 --> 00:15:20.320 He's still trying to solve the problem of the Kalon star, but he must abandon his research and return to his homeworld to participate in a ceremony called the Resolution. 00:15:20.480 --> 00:15:29.759 Now that he's reached the age of 60, Timison will complete ritual suicide, something all Kalon adults of his age consent to do. 00:15:29.919 --> 00:15:38.799 This ritual keeps older folks from becoming a burden to the rest of Kalon society and gives them a dignified and predictable end of life. 00:15:39.120 --> 00:15:42.240 Lawaksana is absolutely scandalized by this. 00:15:42.480 --> 00:15:57.519 It's important to know that not only does Lawaxana have strong romantic feelings for Timison, but as a beta zoid, not a human, she is endowed with certain empathic and telepathic abilities that allow her to read thoughts and feelings from other beings. 00:15:57.679 --> 00:16:05.679 She feels a powerful sense of injustice that Timison would be pulled away from such important work in order to be put to death. 00:16:05.840 --> 00:16:15.600 And further, as a woman of advanced age herself, she objects to the idea that an elderly person would be a burden and wouldn't have anything else to offer their community. 00:16:15.840 --> 00:16:22.320 He is supposed to go down there to his loving friends, be wined dined, honored for his achievements, and then kill himself. 00:16:22.559 --> 00:16:24.480 It's a barbaric ritual. 00:16:24.639 --> 00:16:27.279 The um the resolution, it's called. 00:16:27.440 --> 00:16:29.759 Obviously, you can't let him go, Jean-Luc. 00:16:29.919 --> 00:16:31.600 I'm afraid I have no choice. 00:16:31.919 --> 00:16:34.080 I don't think you've been listening to me. 00:16:34.240 --> 00:16:36.720 The man is supposed to kill himself. 00:16:37.519 --> 00:16:39.600 Now you don't just let that happen. 00:16:39.759 --> 00:16:41.039 You don't just turn your back. 00:16:41.120 --> 00:16:41.919 What's the matter with you? 00:16:42.799 --> 00:16:46.799 I'm sorry, but whatever my personal feelings, I have no jurisdiction here. 00:16:46.960 --> 00:16:48.480 I simply cannot interfere. 00:16:48.720 --> 00:16:50.000 But you have to. 00:16:50.559 --> 00:16:54.639 In a situation like this, you absolutely have to interfere. 00:16:54.799 --> 00:16:58.720 You you've got to go down there, talk to those people, Jean-Luc. 00:16:58.960 --> 00:17:01.039 Open their eyes, educate them. 00:17:01.279 --> 00:17:06.240 The prime directive forbids us to interfere with the social order of any planet. 00:17:07.839 --> 00:17:11.039 Well, it's your prime directive, not mine. 00:17:14.079 --> 00:17:35.519 A brief note here, for those of you who don't watch Star Trek, the Prime Directive is the law of the United Federation of Planets that says that while Starfleet is interacting with other civilizations that aren't a part of theirs, they won't interfere in any kind of way that would violate the autonomy and dignity of a different civilization or species. 00:17:35.759 --> 00:17:45.039 Basically, it's Starfleet's way of saying we're not going to find a new civilization and come in like the morality police and teach everyone how to do things the right way. 00:17:45.279 --> 00:17:49.759 This is their response in part to the difficulty of descriptive relativism. 00:17:49.920 --> 00:17:54.400 Don't try to judge another civilization's actions by the standards of your own. 00:17:54.720 --> 00:18:02.319 So now that we have this situation, we need to understand that this is not a matter of the evil Kalon government is murdering Timison? 00:18:02.640 --> 00:18:10.799 There is a practice at the level of the entire Kalon civilization that everyone is aware of, and that we're led to believe pretty much

everyone goes along with. 00:18:11.039 --> 00:18:18.079 Timison is sad to abandon his important research, but he also feels a sense of duty and responsibility to his culture. 00:18:18.240 --> 00:18:21.039 And he even struggles with his place in his community. 00:18:21.200 --> 00:18:26.079 Does the importance of his work give him leave to postpone the resolution ceremony? 00:18:26.240 --> 00:18:32.240 Is the knowledge that he holds more important than his society's commitment to the longevity of their species? 00:18:32.400 --> 00:18:39.200 And what impact does the emergent issue of a soon-to-be-dead son have on Timson's moral compass? 00:18:41.519 --> 00:18:51.440 What I really want to highlight here is that Timison and Loaxana, who is also meant to represent our perspective as the viewer, experience this dilemma differently. 00:18:51.680 --> 00:18:57.279 For Loaxana, it's unfair and authoritarian that the government should decide when someone dies. 00:18:57.680 --> 00:19:03.680 It implies that elderly folks are a burden, and that folks that don't offer enough to society are unwanted. 00:19:03.920 --> 00:19:09.440 This is an egregious breach of personal autonomy and the right to control one's personal environment. 00:19:09.680 --> 00:19:11.279 How can anyone do this? 00:19:11.599 --> 00:19:26.240 For Timerson, the issue is more about how to honor the part that he plays in the Kalon culture and the important work he feels called to do, and whether the needs and desires of the one outweigh the needs and desires of the many. 00:19:26.640 --> 00:19:35.039 If you want to know how the characters and the story deal with it, go check out episode 22 of season four of Star Trek The Next Generation called Half a Life. 00:19:35.200 --> 00:19:48.319 Les Landau, who directed this episode and many other episodes of various Star Trek franchises, said that this episode was intentionally meant to be a morality play about what the place of the elderly in our society should be. 00:19:48.480 --> 00:19:56.720 The creators intend us to think and draw conclusions about how we should treat folks who might be, quote unquote, a burden on society. 00:19:57.039 --> 00:19:58.000 So what do you think? 00:19:58.240 --> 00:20:04.000 What conclusions do you come to about the Kalon civilization and the way they treat elderly folks? 00:20:04.240 --> 00:20:05.839 Should Loxana intervene? 00:20:06.000 --> 00:20:10.799 Is it right for her to try and convince Timson to reject his civilization's values? 00:20:10.960 --> 00:20:16.880 And what does this tell us about the nature of difficult problems of descriptive ethical relativism? 00:20:17.119 --> 00:20:24.640 At the very least, I think it tells us that there's a lot of work that goes into trying to find the right answer in difficult ethical situations. 00:20:24.799 --> 00:20:29.920 And the more we interact with people who have different values, the more complicated that can become. 00:20:30.160 --> 00:20:35.759 But I don't think it's a cautionary tale about the dangers of intercultural communication. 00:20:36.000 --> 00:20:47.599 Rather, it seems more like an encouragement that these supposedly intractable ethical quandaries can have creative solutions that we participate in solving. 00:20:47.839 --> 00:20:58.079 To return again to our friend Gavin de Gras, we could say that the problem of ethical relativism, well, it's all about the way we receive it, how much we believe it. 00:20:58.319 --> 00:21:02.720 Depending on the life you lead, if you leave it, compare it to yourself. 00:21:02.880 --> 00:21:05.359 Compared to someone else, you can. 00:21:06.319 --> 00:21:06.960 You can. 00:21:07.440 --> 00:21:20.720 You have the ability to think and choose and create, to create actions and effects in the world that meet the challenge of these dilemmas and still align with your commitments and deeply held values. 00:21:20.960 --> 00:21:26.880 That is what it means to live in a world where our moral actions involve our choices. 00:21:40.880 --> 00:21:42.799 It's written by me, Peter Owens. 00:21:42.960 --> 00:21:45.759 For references and citations, you can see the show notes. 00:21:46.160 --> 00:21:48.720 The Things You Can Do intro theme is written by Brandcom. 00:21:49.039 --> 00:21:52.559 The outro theme, and Around the Sun Again We Go, was written by me. 00:21:52.799 --> 00:21:55.119 Also in this episode were my songs, Mr. 00:21:55.200 --> 00:21:58.319 Good Boy, and Interdictor Jedi Trance. 00:21:58.480 --> 00:21:59.759 As well as my instrumental cover. 00:22:00.000 --> 00:22:04.240 Of Gavin de Gras' Relative from his 2008 album, Gavin de Gras. 00:22:04.720 --> 00:22:11.519 Audio from Star Trek The Next Generation, created by Gene Roddenberry, is utilized under fair use conventions. 00:22:11.839 --> 00:22:16.720 Special thanks to producer of the show Meg for her voice talents on this episode.