Is there an absolute morality?
This is a conversation about moral relativism. Before we can discuss it, let’s define what I am talking about. Relativism is the philosophy that denies any absolutes. Any absolutes. Everyone believes that some things are relative, but relativism claims that all things are inherently relative.
As far as I can find, there are four types of relativism: metaphysical, epistemological, moral and religious relativism. You can claim that there are no absolutes anywhere in reality – that’s metaphysical. You can say there are no absolutes in human knowledge – that’s epistemological. Anywhere in morality – that’s moral relativism, and the topic for discussion here. And finally you have no absolutes in religion – that’s religious.
Atheism is the same as metaphysical relativism – there is no Absolute being. Religion is about relationships with the Absolute, so religious relativism says there is no absolute best or truest method for communicating with God. Epistemological relativism is the same as agnosticism – it says that perhaps there is a God, but it can’t be known. There is no absolute in human knowledge. So, where a metaphysical relativist says there is no absolute in reality, and an epistemological relativist says that, “Perhaps there is an absolute in reality, but not in knowledge,” a moral relativist says that perhaps there are absolutes in non-moral knowledge, but not in moral knowledge, i.e. 2+2 does equal 4. But there is no moral absolute. Religious relativism says that there are moral absolutes, such as the Golden Rule, but no religion has it absolutely correct.
I think we all know what ‘moral’ means, so I’ll skip defining it unless specifically requested. ‘Relative’ is always relative to something else, contingent upon something else, or conditional on something else. ‘Absolute’ means ‘not relative’, not contingent but necessary, not conditioned but unconditioned. No ifs, ands, or buts. Absolutes are unchangeable, universal, and objective. There are no distinctions for time, place, or class/culture.
The reason I take such care in defining the terms we use is to properly frame the discussion.
Let me begin by saying that I am a believer in moral absolutes. I think that there is an absolute right and wrong. I believe in good and evil. I think that moral absolutism crosses all cultures and civilizations throughout history. I believe that right and wrong are objective. Right and wrong are taught by all cultures, showing that we are all born with a moral compass pointing the difference between right and wrong. And I think that empirical data proves that out. The first and foundational moral experience that we all have is always absolutistic. Only later in life do we discover relativism. That’s why little kids are always so ‘black and white’.
There is an absolute measure of right and wrong, one that stretches across humanity. It is only through knowing the absolute that we are able to raise ourselves and make progress. Morals and values cannot originate with man. When you are drowning in quicksand, you cannot lift yourself out by your bootstraps.
There has never been a successful society which repudiated moral absolutes. Not one. I think that this issue is important, because the modern West will either disprove one of the most universally established laws in history, give up relativism and survive, or persist in relativism and perish.
It is widely mentioned by those who believe in moral relativism that different cultures have different moral values. The premise of this argument is that moral rightness and wrongness are relative to culture because what is right in one culture is wrong in another. Because a culture’s values differ from one culture to another, moral rightness differs from one culture to another.
The hidden assumption to that argument is that moral rightness is a matter of obedience to your culture’s values, that it is always right to obey your culture’s values. That implied premise assumes cultural relativism. This is important because there can be a difference between what is believed to be right and wrong and what actually *is* right and wrong. Just because the Nazi thinks genocide is right, doesn’t make it so.
But upon investigation, the differences between cultural rights and wrongs are always rooted in a difference of interpretation of a deeper, underlying moral agreement. Different mores for the same morals. Sure, there are differences, but they are like fleas on an elephant – a lot of little disagreements circling around a big agreement. The moral relativist merely ignores the elephant.
To say it another way, the differences between cultures are usually differences in emphasis, not a whole new value system. For example, most pre-modern societies valued courage more than compassion, while most modern societies value compassion above courage. But neither society says that cowardice is good, and neither says cruelty is good. There has never been a wholesale relativism of opinions about values that the relativists portray.
Moral disagreements in history have been either matters of degree or disagreements about how to apply a more basic value that both agree upon. These disagreements share the same morals as a common premise. If you don’t have a common premise, you can’t have a disagreement about how to apply that premise. The fact that one culture values or interprets one moral differently than another culture only proves both cultures recognize that moral and that these morals are universal.
This truth can also be found in language: all cultures have words that represent the same moral tenets. That is what makes translation possible. A culture that has never seen an apple can have no word for it, but all cultures have words for love, honor, charity, courage, good and evil.
If you disagree with that, try to imagine a totally new morality. It is impossible. You can’t envision another morality any more than you can imagine a new set of numbers or colors. Try to imagine a society where honesty and justice and courage and self-control and faith and hope and charity are evil, and lying and cheating and stealing, and cowardice, and betrayal and despair and hate are all good. It can’t be done.
As far as I can find, there are four types of relativism: metaphysical, epistemological, moral and religious relativism. You can claim that there are no absolutes anywhere in reality – that’s metaphysical. You can say there are no absolutes in human knowledge – that’s epistemological. Anywhere in morality – that’s moral relativism, and the topic for discussion here. And finally you have no absolutes in religion – that’s religious.
Atheism is the same as metaphysical relativism – there is no Absolute being. Religion is about relationships with the Absolute, so religious relativism says there is no absolute best or truest method for communicating with God. Epistemological relativism is the same as agnosticism – it says that perhaps there is a God, but it can’t be known. There is no absolute in human knowledge. So, where a metaphysical relativist says there is no absolute in reality, and an epistemological relativist says that, “Perhaps there is an absolute in reality, but not in knowledge,” a moral relativist says that perhaps there are absolutes in non-moral knowledge, but not in moral knowledge, i.e. 2+2 does equal 4. But there is no moral absolute. Religious relativism says that there are moral absolutes, such as the Golden Rule, but no religion has it absolutely correct.
I think we all know what ‘moral’ means, so I’ll skip defining it unless specifically requested. ‘Relative’ is always relative to something else, contingent upon something else, or conditional on something else. ‘Absolute’ means ‘not relative’, not contingent but necessary, not conditioned but unconditioned. No ifs, ands, or buts. Absolutes are unchangeable, universal, and objective. There are no distinctions for time, place, or class/culture.
The reason I take such care in defining the terms we use is to properly frame the discussion.
Let me begin by saying that I am a believer in moral absolutes. I think that there is an absolute right and wrong. I believe in good and evil. I think that moral absolutism crosses all cultures and civilizations throughout history. I believe that right and wrong are objective. Right and wrong are taught by all cultures, showing that we are all born with a moral compass pointing the difference between right and wrong. And I think that empirical data proves that out. The first and foundational moral experience that we all have is always absolutistic. Only later in life do we discover relativism. That’s why little kids are always so ‘black and white’.
There is an absolute measure of right and wrong, one that stretches across humanity. It is only through knowing the absolute that we are able to raise ourselves and make progress. Morals and values cannot originate with man. When you are drowning in quicksand, you cannot lift yourself out by your bootstraps.
There has never been a successful society which repudiated moral absolutes. Not one. I think that this issue is important, because the modern West will either disprove one of the most universally established laws in history, give up relativism and survive, or persist in relativism and perish.
It is widely mentioned by those who believe in moral relativism that different cultures have different moral values. The premise of this argument is that moral rightness and wrongness are relative to culture because what is right in one culture is wrong in another. Because a culture’s values differ from one culture to another, moral rightness differs from one culture to another.
The hidden assumption to that argument is that moral rightness is a matter of obedience to your culture’s values, that it is always right to obey your culture’s values. That implied premise assumes cultural relativism. This is important because there can be a difference between what is believed to be right and wrong and what actually *is* right and wrong. Just because the Nazi thinks genocide is right, doesn’t make it so.
But upon investigation, the differences between cultural rights and wrongs are always rooted in a difference of interpretation of a deeper, underlying moral agreement. Different mores for the same morals. Sure, there are differences, but they are like fleas on an elephant – a lot of little disagreements circling around a big agreement. The moral relativist merely ignores the elephant.
To say it another way, the differences between cultures are usually differences in emphasis, not a whole new value system. For example, most pre-modern societies valued courage more than compassion, while most modern societies value compassion above courage. But neither society says that cowardice is good, and neither says cruelty is good. There has never been a wholesale relativism of opinions about values that the relativists portray.
Moral disagreements in history have been either matters of degree or disagreements about how to apply a more basic value that both agree upon. These disagreements share the same morals as a common premise. If you don’t have a common premise, you can’t have a disagreement about how to apply that premise. The fact that one culture values or interprets one moral differently than another culture only proves both cultures recognize that moral and that these morals are universal.
This truth can also be found in language: all cultures have words that represent the same moral tenets. That is what makes translation possible. A culture that has never seen an apple can have no word for it, but all cultures have words for love, honor, charity, courage, good and evil.
If you disagree with that, try to imagine a totally new morality. It is impossible. You can’t envision another morality any more than you can imagine a new set of numbers or colors. Try to imagine a society where honesty and justice and courage and self-control and faith and hope and charity are evil, and lying and cheating and stealing, and cowardice, and betrayal and despair and hate are all good. It can’t be done.
posted by Rob at
9:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home