•L.1.F.3.•MeMe•E-Zine•

[2]. Now That's Just Wrong!

([D_O~

Now, That's Just WRONG!

SOC.102, INTRO TO ETHICS & SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

[ Instructor: Jenna L. Soard]

"Ethical relativism insists that there is no right or wrong, but that such evaluative terms must be understood relative to a culture, a society, or even an individual." (Mosser, 2010) Relativism has its merits and that societies are made up of groups of individuals, no two of which are exactly alike, physically, mentally or emotionally means that there will always be some level of validity available to the relativistic view. No two people (individually as well as culturally) are exactly alike yet no man is an island. The actions of one person or people will inevitably affect a nearby person or people in some fashion, so, in the case of probable ethical ramifications, there must be some moral machinery in play that will counter the seeming randomness of various cultural moralities. But are there certain acts that can be considered categorically wrong in all cases, in each culture, in every ethical view? In Lenn Goodman's "Some Moral Minima", a list of such categorically wrong offenses is suggested, as follows: (1) genocide, politically induced famine, and germ warfare; (2) terrorism, hostage taking, and child warriors; (3) slavery, polygamy, and incest; and (4) rape and female genital cutting. (Goodman, 2010)

The answer [to why this list of wrongs is so wrong] lies in the intent, not just the scale of the crime. (Goodman, 2010) With the exceptions of perhaps polygamy and incest, each of these criminal endeavors takes from their victims either the quality of or the totality of their lives. Incest is the only of the listed taboos that can be committed without the previous knowledge of the parties involved yet and still it is the offspring who suffer the most from incestuous relations, their rights impinged upon before they are even born. Polygamy is legally practicable even in the United States (Mormons do it as a point of religious right) and Goodman considers it a "crime" against women because, "In polygamous societies women become acquisitions-displays of wealth or status, objects of enjoyment, means of reproduction, providers of childcare and domestic labor." (Goodman, 2010) That both incestuous and polygamous relationships can and have been entered into with the full knowledge and consent of all parties involved, yet without the willful detriment of any parties not involved in mind, separates both from my personal estimation of acts that are categorically wrong. On the one hand, that it is possible that a couple could be together, get married and even have children together without any prior knowledge of their being cousins, siblings or even of common ancestry (mother/son, father/daughter) is a fact. The possibility exists because such things have actually happened before, so that excludes (in my mind) any inclusion into the list of categorical wrong doing. If Cousin Bob and Cousin Sue meet at college, date, fall in love and are legally married, live together and have kids only to discover they are first cousins after seven years together they were engaged in absolutely no wrong doing until they discovered otherwise. As for any polygamist, even on a societal level, if they're mature enough to enter into a marital relationship of any sort then they're old enough to decide the right or wrong of the matter if they're ethical enough to consider the ramifications of marriage in the first place.

As for the rest of Goodman's list: Genocide, Politically Induced Famine, Germ Warfare, Terrorism, Hostage Taking, Child Warriors, Slavery, Rape and Female Genital Cutting, these are all crimes that are committed against other, often unwitting and unwilling victims. In an effort to simplify matters for the sake of discussion I will further clarify the crimes by separating this list into two groups: Individual Wrongs and Societal Wrongs. The Individual Wrongs in Goodman's list are those that can be (though not necessarily always are) enacted against a single victim at a time: Hostage Taking, Child Warriors, Rape and Genital Cutting. In his definition of rape as a sexual act, Goodman states that "Rape is exploitative, objectifying, and, yes, again violative." (Goodman, 2010) The same can be said for Hostage Taking as a form of abduction, Child Warriors as a form of forced child labor and genital cutting as a form of enforced mutilation. Each of these acts is an extreme version of a lesser crime and, that there are lesser versions is reason enough to consider any and all of these acts categorically wrong in their extremity, if for no other reason. All of these crimes are exploitative, in that they are committed in the interests of abusing some feature of their victims to the sole gain of the perpetrator at large. They objectify their victims in that those against whom said crimes are perpetrated are viewed as nothing more than that: objects to be used and discarded at the perpetrators discretion, regardless of any humanity said victims must in actuality possess. In effect, said crimes are, in all cases, violative in that there is absolutely no good intent what-so-ever towards the victims nor is there any decent outcome available to them. What gain has a rape victim after the fact? How does a child warrior prosper? How much do hostages get paid? To what benefit is the victim in the wake of having had their genitals mutilated?