Moral absolutism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. "Absolutism" is often philosophically contrasted with moral relativism, which is a belief that moral truths are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and to situational ethics, which holds that the morality of an act depends on the context of the act.

Moral absolutists believe that morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will or character of God or gods, or some other fundamental source. They regard actions as inherently moral or immoral. They might, for example, judge slavery, war, dictatorship, the death penalty, or childhood abuse to be absolutely immoral regardless of the beliefs and goals of a culture that engages in these practices.

In a minority of cases, moral absolutism is taken to the more constrained position that actions are moral or immoral regardless of the circumstances in which they occur. Lying, for instance, would always be immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., saving a life). This rare view of moral absolutism might be contrasted with moral consequentialism—the view that the morality of an action depends on the context or consequences of that action.

Modern human rights theory is a form of moral absolutism, usually based on an estimate of the nature of humanity and the essence of human nature. One such theory was constructed by John Rawls in his A Theory of Justice.[citation needed]

Contents

[edit] Moral absolutism and moral objectivism

The difference between these positions is subtle. Absolutism can be seen as a stronger form of objectivism.

  • "Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated." [1]
  • "Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance (developed from [1]

[edit] Moral absolutism and religion

Presently moral absolutism may be understood in a strictly secular context in some quarters. However, many religions have morally absolutist positions, regarding their system of morality as having been set by a deity.[citation needed] Therefore, they regard such a moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable. Many philosophies also take a morally absolutist stance, arguing that the laws of morality are inherent in the nature of human beings, the nature of life in general, or the universe itself. For example, someone who believes absolutely in nonviolence considers it wrong to use violence even in self-defense. For another example, under some religious moral absolutist beliefs, homosexual behavior is considered fundamentally wrong, even in a monogamous relationship.

The historical character of religious belief is seen by some[who?] as strong grounds for criticism of religious moral absolutism. On the other hand, the fact that some moral changes, such as from permitting slavery to prohibiting it, apparently are "progress", is seen by others as evidence for absolutism, not necessarily religious. This can be a criticism of certain religions who abide by such rules[citation needed].

Humanity has wrestled with questions of moral absolutism in religion for thousands of years. The notion of the dangers of judging good from evil is central in the story of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the book of Genesis from the Pentateuch.

[edit] Graded absolutism

Further information: Moral dilemma

Many Christians regard Christian theology as teaching a hierarchy of moral absolutes [2] — a view called graded absolutism.[3] Here, if there is a conflict between two absolutes, the duty to obey the higher one exempts one from the duty to the lower one. And the order is duty to God > duty to fellow humans > duty to property.[citation needed] The Greatest commandment is the cornerstone of this moral system. Under this system, Corrie ten Boom was morally justified to lie to Nazis about the Jews her family was hiding, because protecting lives is a higher moral value than telling the truth to murderers. Norman Geisler defends this view in his book Christian Ethics (Baker Book House, 1981). [4]

[edit] Moral absolutism and free will

Semi-religious arguments for moral absolutism have to do with the relationship between free will, choice, and morals. Some have argued that without free will, the universe is deterministic and therefore morally uninteresting (i.e., if all moral choices and moral behavior are determined by outside forces, there can be no need for any person to ponder morality), though this would depend on whether free choice is required for an action to be 'moral'. If free will exists, it stands to reason that the universe allows moral behavior[who?]. From this, some believe this feature is integral to the universe's reason for being. A softer, more theological, line of reasoning is that God may 'need' to permit us to have choices, but leaves the concerns of those choices (and their consequences) up to the people making them[who?]. In this case, moral absolutism is a subjective decision (i.e., free will must, by definition, include the freedom to choose what is moral).

These views are generally not accepted by those who deny free will. Some, in fact, deny free will and still accept moral absolutism—and argue that these two beliefs are inextricably tied[who?].

A primary criticism of moral absolutism regards how we come to know what the "absolute" morals are. The authorities that are quoted as sources of absolute morality are all subject to human interpretation, and multiple views abound on them. For morals to be truly absolute, they would have to have a universally unquestioned source, interpretation and authority. Therefore, so critics say, there is no conceivable source of such morals, and none can be called "absolute"[who?]. So even if there are absolute morals, there will never be universal agreement on just what those morals are[citation needed].

The philosopher Immanuel Kant was a promoter of moral absolutism. The philosopher Plato and his student, Aristotle, also believed in universalism, opposing the moral relativism of the Sophists.

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ a b Pojman, L. P. : A Defense of Ethical Objectivism (p. 50)
  2. ^ Holding, James Patrick. The Good Lie - Why is Rahab Praised for Lying?. Tektonics.org. Retrieved on 2007-12-27.
  3. ^ Burdette, Dallas. Biblical Situation Ethics or Graded Absolutism. Freedominchrist.net. Retrieved on 2007-12-27.
  4. ^ Any Absolutes? Absolutely!, Norman L. Geisler, Christian Research Institute

[edit] External links

  • [1]Christ in Creation and Ethical Monism; by Augustus Hopkins Strong, 1899.
v • d • e
Philosophy
Eastern philosophy · Western philosophy
History
Lists
Branches
Philosophy of
Schools
Portal · Category listings