Absolutism or Relativism

The author recently polled his friends on Facebook and asked them to vote, “Relativism” or “Absolutism.” Just two responses were given. The first response was, “Moral Relativism. Sometimes we have to be flexible even with our morals. For instance, who hasn’t bent the truth for those we love so we don’t hurt them.” The second response, “No freaking brainer here…absolutism. I’m not even going to justify it here because it is self-standing, self-supporting, rule of natural law.” The author commented to the two of them that their view might coincide with their political philosophies as well. The relativist is very liberal in his political views. The absolutist is very conservative. Truly these two friends are at opposite ends of the spectrum. At that point the author declared himself an absolutist and shared a news story from September 2009. This story described a 61 year-old man slapping a child 4 times at a Georgia Wal-Mart to get her to stop crying. (Associated Press, 2009) The question posed, is the relativist’s morality flexible enough to allow for this man who apparently believed that the correct way to get a child to stop crying is to resort to physical abuse. How does relativism apply to this story?

Morality is defined as “conformity to the rules of right conduct.” The question is who makes the rules? Who decides what is right or wrong? There are a variety of possibilities. A religious person would likely say that these rules come from God as the ultimate authority for correct conduct. William Irvine reminds us, though, that that nearly all of the absolutist ethical theories developed by philosophers involve no religious presuppositions at all. (Irvine, 2000/2001, p. 44). Aristotle indicates that what is right is what is good for man, or better still good for the country or city state. (Aristotle, 2008, p. 366) The absolutist says that there are indisputable answers to the moral questions that arise. The relativist states that what is right for one man is not right for another. What is right for one culture is not necessarily right for another. (Irvine, 2000/2001, p. 43)It is a philosophy of openness (Rauchut, 2008)

There is a moral hole in the ozone according to Christina Hoff Sommers (Sommers, Are we living in a moral stone age?, 2008, p. 390) and that has come about because of a cultural shift in America. According to Rauchut moral relativism “is the modern replacement of inalienable rights that used to be the traditional American grounds for a free society.” (Rauchut, 2008, p. 116) Basically man is free to decide for himself what is right and what is wrong. People like Emerson would agree whole-heartedly. He said that he would “obey no law less than the eternal.” (Emerson, 2008, p. 380) That eternal law comes from within, according to him. In our present vernacular we have another name for that…anarchy. If every man determined for himself what is right and what is wrong, then you would have a glut of outrageous incidents like 61 year-old men slapping little girls in Wal-marts.

Perhaps there are some relativists that will argue that each man isn’t the captain of his own ship and maker of his own rules as Emerson might suggest, but that morality is preserved when it is based on the inclinations of the dominant culture. Ruth Benedict suggested such a thing. “Normality,” she wrote, “in short, within a very wide range is culturally defined.”(Benedict, 1934, p. 210) This though is a logical fallacy called the appeal to popularity or ad populum. (The Nizkor Project, 1991-2009). When people mistreat each other, or kill each other, or in the example given by David Marbury-Lewis, “peel the penis like a banana and cut into the flesh beneath the foreskin” (Maybury-Lewis, 1992, p. 9)it becomes evident that there must be some people in that culture who are opposed to concept of moral relativity. As long as these people have a differing opinion about right and wrong is not the relativist in error in forcing their morality on the dissenter? In these situations it is clear that what is happening to these people is neither right nor good for man, country, or city state.

Absolutism is the alternative and it means that people have to start with the foundational belief that there is a difference between right and wrong. In our country such ideas should not be foreign. “When Thomas Jefferson wrote that all men have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, he did not say, ‘At least that’s my opinion.’ He declared it as an objective truth. (Sommers, Are we living in a moral stone age?, 2008, p. 391) Ms. Sommers goes on to express the need for moral education that embraces the concept of absolutism and her belief that “moral education must have as its explicit aim the moral betterment of the student.” (Sommers, Teaching the Virtues, 2008, p. 397) The author, though, would take a radical position and state that this type of training should also happen in the home starting at a very early age.

The value of absolutism is the curbing of the moral decay of America and throughout the world. It recognizes that it is morally wrong to take an innocent life. It acknowledges that it is wrong to lie or steal or abuse a child and these things are true universally. The absolutist is (or should be) mature enough to understand that even though they don’t have all the answers, doesn’t mean that the answers don’t exist. (Irvine, 2000/2001, p. 44) The absolutist has to learn to be ok with the idea that people will disagree with him and think of him as intolerant, though it is interesting that a relativist could, with a straight face, make such a moral judgment. The absolutist must love truth.

Attitudes have changed much over the last 50 years or so. An absolutist who saw the right and wrong of a moral issue was more of the norm. Today, it’s the “secular saint…the person who is most non-judgmental, the person most willing to tolerate the most repugnant behavior.” (Rauchut, 2008, p. 126). The norm from 50 years ago is under attack. Krauthammer explains what society labeled deviant log ago is now labeled by society as normal. (Krauthammer, 2008, p. 384) Such a thing can easily happen in a society where there is fear to offend, fear to speak the truth, and fear to make a moral decision, and most importantly a fear to acknowledge that people can be wrong. Relativists find themselves without a leg to stand on if they stop long enough to think about their own philosophy. When they understand that there can’t be 6 billion versions of the truth, and when they realize that even an appeal to the dominant culture cannot make what is wrong right, they can be free to do their part to make the world a better place to live.

Works Cited

Aristotle. (2008). The Nichomacean Ethics. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 366-373.

Associated Press. (2009, September 2). Stranger Allegedly Slaps Crying Toddler in Store to 'Shut Her Up'. Retrieved November 6, 2009, from www.foxnews.com: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,545823,00.html

Benedict, R. (1934). A Defense of Moral Relativism. The Journal of General Psychology , 10 , 204-213. Heldref Publications. Retrieved from Electroic Reserves System.

Emerson, R. W. (2008). Self-Reliance. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 374-383.

Irvine, W. B. (2000/2001). Confronting Relativism. Academic Questions , Vol. 14 Issue 1 , Winter, p42, 8p. Princeton, NJ, USA.

Krauthammer, C. (2008). Defining Deviancy Up. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 384-389.

Maybury-Lewis, D. (1992). Tribal Wisdom. 8-14. Retrieved from Electroic Reserves System.

Rauchut, E. A. (2008). American Vision and Values: A Companion to the Kirpatrick Signature Series. Omaha: Bellevue University Press.

Sommers, C. H. (2008). Are we living in a moral stone age? Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 390-393.

Sommers, C. H. (2008). Teaching the Virtues. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 394-398.

The Nizkor Project. (1991-2009). Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity. Retrieved November 6, 2009, from www.nizkor.org: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html