Is our search for an objective morality misguided? | Short Pitch | Slavoj Žižek

Should we welcome the return of objective morality, or is it authoritarian fantasy? Slavoj Žižek explores morality and truth.

Once the fashion of a postmodern age, moral relativism has always had its detractors particularly from those with a religious inclination. But now a new breed of celebrity thinkers this time with an atheist bent, from Sam Harris to Peter Singer, are making claims for the existence of absolute moral truths even though they would deride the strict moral codes of others, like the Victorians. Critics argue that like authoritarian moralists of the past, they use so-called 'objective' morality to shore up to their own prejudices and silence dissent.

#ObjectiveTruthsAndMorality #IsObjectivityAnAuthoritarianFantasy #MoralRelativismOrMoralTruths

Slavoj Žižek is a globally renowned philosopher and cultural critic. He is international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London, visiting professor at New York University and a senior researcher at the University of Ljubljana's Department of Philosophy. He is the author of several books, including The Sublime Object of Ideology, The Parallax View, Living in the End Times and Heaven in Disorder.

The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today!

[TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

Do you think we should return to objective morality? Let us know in the comments below!

[LifeForAiur]

You'll find it, rather unsurprisingly, that a majority of philosophers reject moral relativism, according to the PhilPapers surveys.
I think what hangs up laymen is the concept of cultural relativism. But absolute moral truths can exist and cultures can be wrong. In fact, cultures can be right but people can always engage in some kind of hypocrisy. The way they justify it is interesting, but nonetheless observable actions do not disprove the existence of an absolute moral truth.
I mean I think throughout all cultures murder is wrong. And I don't think war or ritualistic sacrifice disprove moral objectivity of that fact. People are good at rationalizing exceptions (whether they are objectively true or not).

[jakubbarjak]

I am sorry, but I think there was no answer whatsoever. Yes, it is interesting to notice the contrast between what we think the Rules should be and what we think people should Really Do. But that does not answer whether the expected outcome is really good or bad... Or is he trying to say that our morality is just a mix of paradoxical and nonsensical customs? Then how does he come up with his judgements of society? What is his moral background? What is the formula, the logic that tells him which social game is better or worse? That is the big question of objective morality, isn't it?

[Beverlyshowwazup]

Slovaj is a legend! I wonder if the people around him understand this!

[peterclark]

Ideology is very similar to religion in supporting the argument that human morality must be in the hands of the few. The idea (from the Sciences) that any confluence of both Instincts and Internally-generated drugs (neurotransmitters and hormones) carry the complete moral fundamentals for a human society is a direct challenge to both their theses. Ergo: If our 'package' prefers for the development of individual courage, resilience, personal achievement and sociability then an ungovernable, autonomy-seeking, freedom and vibrant citizenry and society would be the outcome. The society that works the most on how to produce more prototypically 'ideal' replacement adults will remain in the game. The Cosmos smirks.

[audiodead]

Morality has its roots in our evolutionary origins. I take the Chomsky view that they are hard wired into us in the same way language is. That is, certain 'principles' are universal across cultures (sanctity of life, concept of property, honesty, selfless/selfishness) as they enable humans to function effectively as a society. But the 'parameters' are formed through experience and local conditions (e.g. every culture has slightly different views on property, or on what justifies killing, etc). So I would say morality is partly objective (the nature part) and partly relativistic (the nurture part).

[haydenwalton]

morality is subjective - full stop.
it is on a spectrum that should be well argued to be at the objective end, but then - there's the rub -
to be human and to argue for it well

[lokayatavishwam]

Žižek is one of the last remnants of a pop-intellengentsia that tries to conceal it's depthlessness with the juggling of propositions and the desperate 'unearthing of contradictions and paradoxes' (as he himself likes to call it). He has no proper arguments against moral realism, or ethical naturalism or even Discourse Ethics (of the Hermeneutic tradition). How can somebody like this provide anything substantial to a debate on objective morality?
There's no wonder that his heros are Lacan and Hegel. Most important contemporary philosophers recognized Lacan as an absolute charlatan. And Hegel is ofcourse infamous for his obscurantist style that he skillfully deployed to construct a social-reverence for his ideas rooted in conservatism (although his conceptual apparatus itself being quite important, as pointed out by Marx). Zizek doesn't even have anything substantially original to contribute. There's just humor and some kind of intellectual-masturbation to keep everyone engaged and actively confused.