Edward Heath: 'Abhorrence of apartheid is a moral attitude, not a policy.'

Abhorrence of apartheid is a moral attitude, not a policy.

The quote "Abhorrence of apartheid is a moral attitude, not a policy" by Edward Heath is both thought-provoking and significant. It encapsulates the notion that opposition to apartheid should not be perceived as a mere political strategy, but rather as a fundamental moral principle. The South African apartheid system, which institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination, caused immense suffering and injustice for millions of people. Heath's quote emphasizes that taking a stance against apartheid should not be driven by political expediency but rather by a deep-rooted sense of right and wrong.Now, let's introduce an unexpected philosophical concept to add interest and depth to the discussion. One idea that comes to mind is the concept of moral relativism. Moral relativism is the belief that moral principles are relative to individuals, cultures, or societies, and that there is no absolute or universal moral truth. This concept challenges the idea of a clear distinction between moral attitudes and policies, as expressed in Heath's quote.At first glance, the quote seems to suggest that one's abhorrence of apartheid should be based on a moral conviction rather than a calculated political maneuver. However, moral relativism raises the question of whether individuals have a duty to adopt a collective moral attitude or whether moral judgments are simply subjective preferences.According to moral relativism, each person's moral beliefs are shaped by their cultural and societal backgrounds. Therefore, the abhorrence of apartheid may vary across different societies or even within a single society. Some might argue that it is not appropriate to impose moral attitudes on others, as everyone is entitled to their own perspective.However, this perspective encounters several ethical dilemmas. If we embrace moral relativism and consider moral principles to be subjective, where do we draw the line between acceptance of different viewpoints and legitimate moral outrage? Apartheid, due to its inherent injustices, cannot easily be dismissed as a matter of personal opinion or cultural relativism.While it is crucial to respect diversity and acknowledge cultural differences, there are certain principles, such as human rights and equality, that transcend cultural relativism. Apartheid, as a system built on racial discrimination and oppression, violates these principles, making it an appropriate target for moral condemnation.Furthermore, the quote emphasizes the importance of moral attitudes in shaping policies. While policies are often driven by political considerations, they should not be divorced from moral foundations. Apartheid was not simply an immoral concept, but a policy implemented by the South African government at the time. By recognizing that abhorrence of apartheid is a moral attitude, Heath implies that policies should be evaluated in light of ethical considerations.In conclusion, Edward Heath's quote encapsulates the idea that opposition to apartheid is not a matter of political expediency but a moral imperative. It stresses the importance of having a strong ethical stance against systems that promote discrimination and injustice. Although the concept of moral relativism challenges the notion of universal moral attitudes, the nature of apartheid as a violation of fundamental human rights makes it impossible to dismiss opposition to it as merely subjective. Ultimately, Heath reminds us that moral attitudes have a significant role to play in shaping policies and determining our response to social injustices.