Moral Relativism (another nice long entry : )
It seems a reoccuring theme in today's news, politics, and conversations, in one way or another, is the idea of the moral absolute. Quite a few people believe that there are many morales and ethical issues for which there is only one right/correct/good way to handle them, and all other options are wrong/evil/bad. The basic idea stems mostly from religious dogma, where a prophet or god proclaims how we should live, and from there we cannot question this. The idea is the core foundation of many conservative ideals in our culture, that if an act is wrong, it is wrong for all time without exception. This belief has given a huge amount of power to churches and religious leaders, and has directed the behavior of people for quite a long time in some way or another.
The entire idea of absolute morality makes some sense from a theoretical standpoint, but in actuality falls apart quickly to reality. Take a very simple rule such as "Thou shalt not kill". Every religion and country has this as a basic rule somewhere, and yet it is broken over and over and over. The moral absolute says not to kill, but throughout history exceptions have been made so often on so many levels that the concept of it being absolute becomes almost a joke. "Thou shalt not kill", BUT there are some "acceptable" footnotes, such as: war (especially for religious reasons), retribution and revenge (such as the death penalty), slavery (this was supported by the church for centuries), and so forth. It was so significant that religious leaders spent years writing books on what constituted "just or unjust war" or "just and unjust slavery". When asked if killing is wrong, almost anyone, even a soldier or criminal, will reply saying it is wrong...yet people, governments, and religious groups concoct reasons to kill every day and still manage to tout absolute morality along side this. No absolute rule can come with a dynamic, growing list of footnotes (I don't remember anything about an appendix for the ten commandments), it then becomes no longer absolute.
Even worse, hatred is considered an evil by most people as well, and yet it is encouraged in times of danger or uncertainty to unify people. Today there exists a fear and almost subconscious hate towards people of middle-eastern descent, despite the fact that the people who truly are middle eastern terrorists remain a miniscule minority when compared to everyone else (including actual terrorists of other backgrounds). Wars have always seen this, as have times of tension and fear---people (sometimes even supported by political and religious leaders) find scapegoats and try and ease their own fears by taking them out on others. There may not be hangings, burnings, or drownings (much) anymore, but the idea of a witch hunt is one that has always been around, and certainly did not die in New England many years ago.
A common response to this is to say that it is up to god to decide what is right and wrong in each case based on one's actions and when to permit exceptions. At that point the exceptions can be followed as though they were absolute law and all is seemingly well. This doesn't proclaim absolute anything though...it is like a physicisy who just learned that Einstein has proven relativity and suddenly declares, "But this relativity is nonetheless absolute!" Making 'sbsolute' rules and then changing them later is a hypocrisy in itself.
The biggest irony of all is that most conservative leaders who condemn moral relativism actually are the biggest practicers of moral relativism. The US backs Saddam Hussein as a discator one moment, then denounces him the next, all the while allowing and committing atrocities along the way. Many world leaders believe that it is best to give to the poor and needy, but in response they do the opposite, slashing the taxes of the rich and reducing benefits and job opportunities to the poor. Murder through abortion is wrong, yet the murder of thousands of people overseas (or the inadvertant murder of many more due to neglect) is allowed on a regular basis.
There is no basis beyond limited religion beliefs for the existence of moral absolutism. There ARE many ways of life that help society and civilization as a whole, and these are ways of life we should try and follow, but there is no way to put rules in firm, unyielding stone and expect them to be followed forever - or even that following them would be productive in all cases. Killing is wrong and we can easily say this, but if it comes down to self defense, that ideal will become shaky for most people. Death and hate are simple enough issues more often than not...but some ideals are not so easy to defend - many issues exist in society today that have no simple solution or guideline. When an issue has no absolute rule to guide it, people who believe in absolute morality will stretch existing rules (or even create new ones) such that it encompasses whatever it needs to.
Of course, in the absence of moral absolutes it can become much harder to identify the solutions to problems. No longer is there the easy predetermined solution, but we have to think ahead and decide what is best for all given the situation. This is what a system of justice is supposed to be for (there are many people who have gone to court for crimes but were found innocent as a result of the extenuating circumstances). Some areas of society cling hard to moral absolutes, but society as a whole is evolving away from this and has been for a very long time. This does not make people evil or immoral, it simply means they are capable of thinking for themselves. A lack of moral absolutes does not condemn society to chaos, anarchy, or sin. Society can form rules without the need for religious-driven absolutes being enforced. This is very much analogous to those who belive that atheists, agnostics, or other non-denominational spiritualists will sin, commit crimes, or hurt society. The connection is made in fear of change but carries no weight on the whole.
The last big issue with moral absolutes is that they can be abused heavily. No one expects this, but it has happened over and over whenever absolute moral law has been granted to a world leader. The world has had enough in the way of unyielding dictators and people who believe their morals are superior to others. People can try and put together some absolute list of what is right and wrong, but there will always be footnotes, amendments, corollaries, and so forth that make "absolute" seem fairly absurd. Whatever list that is created would most likely have a handful of issues that would scarcely be argued *in theory* (but in practice will hit brick walls often), and then many more ideals that would be controversial and not agreed on widely at all.
One thing I will state, to avoid lengthy arguments, is that there is no 'absolute' way to prove either case here. Once cannot prove moral absolutes and moral relativism cannot be realistically proven either. At best we can look at society and infer the effects of each and see what is best. Moral rules were created to help society and allow us to continue evolving in the most positive ways possible - this can be accomplished without absolutes (this does not mean a society is without law, it is just without an unyielding, eternal, closeminded law). Our country today (as well as most of the advanced countries in the world) has a very relativistic judicial system, and while flaws do exist, they are not the product of this particular issue. It allows for people to have a chance at freedom when their beliefs are merely different, not necessaryly 'wrong'. Life isn't always about right or wrong, black or white, good or evil. Gray areas do exist and it's folly to try and point fingers and label based on restrictive and often irrelevant ideals.
This topic can be discussed at length forever if desired from many, many angles, but the basic question that remains in the end is, "Can we create a list of unbending/unchanging laws for society that can hold for eternity without exception?" (and could we ever have done this?) If the answer is not a resounding yes, then moral relativism is in play and absolutes cannot work thoroughly for our way of life.
The entire idea of absolute morality makes some sense from a theoretical standpoint, but in actuality falls apart quickly to reality. Take a very simple rule such as "Thou shalt not kill". Every religion and country has this as a basic rule somewhere, and yet it is broken over and over and over. The moral absolute says not to kill, but throughout history exceptions have been made so often on so many levels that the concept of it being absolute becomes almost a joke. "Thou shalt not kill", BUT there are some "acceptable" footnotes, such as: war (especially for religious reasons), retribution and revenge (such as the death penalty), slavery (this was supported by the church for centuries), and so forth. It was so significant that religious leaders spent years writing books on what constituted "just or unjust war" or "just and unjust slavery". When asked if killing is wrong, almost anyone, even a soldier or criminal, will reply saying it is wrong...yet people, governments, and religious groups concoct reasons to kill every day and still manage to tout absolute morality along side this. No absolute rule can come with a dynamic, growing list of footnotes (I don't remember anything about an appendix for the ten commandments), it then becomes no longer absolute.
Even worse, hatred is considered an evil by most people as well, and yet it is encouraged in times of danger or uncertainty to unify people. Today there exists a fear and almost subconscious hate towards people of middle-eastern descent, despite the fact that the people who truly are middle eastern terrorists remain a miniscule minority when compared to everyone else (including actual terrorists of other backgrounds). Wars have always seen this, as have times of tension and fear---people (sometimes even supported by political and religious leaders) find scapegoats and try and ease their own fears by taking them out on others. There may not be hangings, burnings, or drownings (much) anymore, but the idea of a witch hunt is one that has always been around, and certainly did not die in New England many years ago.
A common response to this is to say that it is up to god to decide what is right and wrong in each case based on one's actions and when to permit exceptions. At that point the exceptions can be followed as though they were absolute law and all is seemingly well. This doesn't proclaim absolute anything though...it is like a physicisy who just learned that Einstein has proven relativity and suddenly declares, "But this relativity is nonetheless absolute!" Making 'sbsolute' rules and then changing them later is a hypocrisy in itself.
The biggest irony of all is that most conservative leaders who condemn moral relativism actually are the biggest practicers of moral relativism. The US backs Saddam Hussein as a discator one moment, then denounces him the next, all the while allowing and committing atrocities along the way. Many world leaders believe that it is best to give to the poor and needy, but in response they do the opposite, slashing the taxes of the rich and reducing benefits and job opportunities to the poor. Murder through abortion is wrong, yet the murder of thousands of people overseas (or the inadvertant murder of many more due to neglect) is allowed on a regular basis.
There is no basis beyond limited religion beliefs for the existence of moral absolutism. There ARE many ways of life that help society and civilization as a whole, and these are ways of life we should try and follow, but there is no way to put rules in firm, unyielding stone and expect them to be followed forever - or even that following them would be productive in all cases. Killing is wrong and we can easily say this, but if it comes down to self defense, that ideal will become shaky for most people. Death and hate are simple enough issues more often than not...but some ideals are not so easy to defend - many issues exist in society today that have no simple solution or guideline. When an issue has no absolute rule to guide it, people who believe in absolute morality will stretch existing rules (or even create new ones) such that it encompasses whatever it needs to.
Of course, in the absence of moral absolutes it can become much harder to identify the solutions to problems. No longer is there the easy predetermined solution, but we have to think ahead and decide what is best for all given the situation. This is what a system of justice is supposed to be for (there are many people who have gone to court for crimes but were found innocent as a result of the extenuating circumstances). Some areas of society cling hard to moral absolutes, but society as a whole is evolving away from this and has been for a very long time. This does not make people evil or immoral, it simply means they are capable of thinking for themselves. A lack of moral absolutes does not condemn society to chaos, anarchy, or sin. Society can form rules without the need for religious-driven absolutes being enforced. This is very much analogous to those who belive that atheists, agnostics, or other non-denominational spiritualists will sin, commit crimes, or hurt society. The connection is made in fear of change but carries no weight on the whole.
The last big issue with moral absolutes is that they can be abused heavily. No one expects this, but it has happened over and over whenever absolute moral law has been granted to a world leader. The world has had enough in the way of unyielding dictators and people who believe their morals are superior to others. People can try and put together some absolute list of what is right and wrong, but there will always be footnotes, amendments, corollaries, and so forth that make "absolute" seem fairly absurd. Whatever list that is created would most likely have a handful of issues that would scarcely be argued *in theory* (but in practice will hit brick walls often), and then many more ideals that would be controversial and not agreed on widely at all.
One thing I will state, to avoid lengthy arguments, is that there is no 'absolute' way to prove either case here. Once cannot prove moral absolutes and moral relativism cannot be realistically proven either. At best we can look at society and infer the effects of each and see what is best. Moral rules were created to help society and allow us to continue evolving in the most positive ways possible - this can be accomplished without absolutes (this does not mean a society is without law, it is just without an unyielding, eternal, closeminded law). Our country today (as well as most of the advanced countries in the world) has a very relativistic judicial system, and while flaws do exist, they are not the product of this particular issue. It allows for people to have a chance at freedom when their beliefs are merely different, not necessaryly 'wrong'. Life isn't always about right or wrong, black or white, good or evil. Gray areas do exist and it's folly to try and point fingers and label based on restrictive and often irrelevant ideals.
This topic can be discussed at length forever if desired from many, many angles, but the basic question that remains in the end is, "Can we create a list of unbending/unchanging laws for society that can hold for eternity without exception?" (and could we ever have done this?) If the answer is not a resounding yes, then moral relativism is in play and absolutes cannot work thoroughly for our way of life.