An old blog revisited
Since childhood, I've been painfully aware of “rights” and “wrongs”, always closely shadowed by the specter of established religion making it horrifyingly clear that “right” leads to heaven, and “wrong' leads to hell- with little wiggle room. Recently, though, I've been faced with a set of realizations; and as a result have come to the conclusion that there is less room in our society for absolutes any time ever before. This is so, for the simple fact that where there is an absolute- there is unequivocally an exception. In this light, 'right' and 'wrong' become a matter of interpretation.
What many who stand in staunch opposition to the thought of moral relativism seem to neglect is the simple truth that with every rule- there are instances in which it is bent, broken or neglected entirely, and to good effect. Furthermore, with any set of laws (no matter how divine) comes the man-made issue of “circumstance” to throw a proverbial monkey wrench into the works. Anecdotally, no man is going to say “thou shall not steal” as another is forced to act on necessity and circumstance. No one would have spoken out against Hitler's would-be assassin- in spite of doctrine that expressly condemns murder. The rule bends, or the rule breaks; and still there are moral absolutists. But why is this? Because a position of absolute rights and wrongs (most noticeably seen in modern organized religions) is inherently flawed in its inability to recognize the issue of circumstance and its inflexibility in realistic application- or lack thereof. Summation, what advantages absolutism possesses in ideological terms, it lacks sorely in the test of realistic application- especially when contrasted to the more operationally sound and flexible ideology of moral relativity.
That is not to say that some absolutes do not exist- it is quite to the contrary. In strict interpretation of right and wrong, moral relativists are portrayed as being devoid of morals- or as abusing the “gray” areas for selfish means. But to me, moral relativity is a way of viewing life's circumstances and deciding where and how the few absolutes that do exist interact with the “gray areas”. There are rights, and wrongs- but they are not absolute (and never have been, nor never will be) to me.
The issue at hand is that people themselves must decide the gray areas. It is unique interpretation on behalf of the individual that makes up those “gray areas”- that decides the varying degrees, the shades that circumstance and personal choice alone can dictate- not absolute and outdated doctrine.
What many who stand in staunch opposition to the thought of moral relativism seem to neglect is the simple truth that with every rule- there are instances in which it is bent, broken or neglected entirely, and to good effect. Furthermore, with any set of laws (no matter how divine) comes the man-made issue of “circumstance” to throw a proverbial monkey wrench into the works. Anecdotally, no man is going to say “thou shall not steal” as another is forced to act on necessity and circumstance. No one would have spoken out against Hitler's would-be assassin- in spite of doctrine that expressly condemns murder. The rule bends, or the rule breaks; and still there are moral absolutists. But why is this? Because a position of absolute rights and wrongs (most noticeably seen in modern organized religions) is inherently flawed in its inability to recognize the issue of circumstance and its inflexibility in realistic application- or lack thereof. Summation, what advantages absolutism possesses in ideological terms, it lacks sorely in the test of realistic application- especially when contrasted to the more operationally sound and flexible ideology of moral relativity.
That is not to say that some absolutes do not exist- it is quite to the contrary. In strict interpretation of right and wrong, moral relativists are portrayed as being devoid of morals- or as abusing the “gray” areas for selfish means. But to me, moral relativity is a way of viewing life's circumstances and deciding where and how the few absolutes that do exist interact with the “gray areas”. There are rights, and wrongs- but they are not absolute (and never have been, nor never will be) to me.
The issue at hand is that people themselves must decide the gray areas. It is unique interpretation on behalf of the individual that makes up those “gray areas”- that decides the varying degrees, the shades that circumstance and personal choice alone can dictate- not absolute and outdated doctrine.