It is human nature to believe that one’s own ideas of right and wrong are the absolute standard and that anyone who doesn’t agree is a moral relativist.
The very definition of moral relativism — a view in which moral standards are not absolute or universal, instead emerging from varied social customs, laws, religious beliefs, etc — can be interpreted to mean that everyone, even those who believe that their own personal moral standards are the absolute, is a moral relativist.
Since ethics is usually defined as a set of principles of right conduct and morals are concerned with the judgment of good and evil as they apply to human behavior and character, whether some morals are absolute or relative comes down to the question of objective versus subjective views of right and wrong.
This means that so-called moral absolutists — whose heads are often so swollen with the intoxicating effects of sanctimoniously minding everyone else’s business that they cannot tell the difference between ethics and morals — are actually preaching ethics rather than morality, which makes them just another bunch of moral relativists, everything being relative, of course.
Indeed, the semantics of these philosophical constrcts can make your head spin, but that’s nothing compared to the way that some people have –rightly or wrongly — put them into action in order to validate their own sins as righteous and virtuous while serving their agendas of controlling, via secular legislation, those natural human needs and desires, which according to their relative ethics are wrong/evil/immoral.
Those who would rather reflect upon the specks in their neighbors’ eyes rather than the logs in their own express a pious contempt for the notion that the only moral absolute with which most humans can freely and peacfully concur is that those actions and behaviors which cause harm to come to others are wrong/evil/immoral and everything else is a matter of cultural, religious and personal ethics, principles and values.
I submit that these busybodies cannot/will not accept that very narrow definition of moral absolutism because such an admission would mean that they would have to give up the distraction of judging other peoples’ sins to reflect upon the moral relativism of their own sins.
Article comments
1 - Steve S
LOVE the amazon link 'reference'.
Many blogs that I frequent (because I believe in their ideology), talk about how we are going down a road to theocracy.
Most people on the Right, dispute this and dismiss it as paranoia.
When we see though, that legislation is being passed allowing pharmacists to dispense medicine contingent upon their religious belief, when we see the Constitution Restoration Act (whether or not it may actually come to pass, it is real, it is before us, and it has support), when we see the assault on judges, the assault on the Constitution, etc. how can anybody NOT think that we are closer to a theocracy than at any time in our history? It's becoming more and more likely we can vote a theocracy in, without even knowing it. And yes, you accurately point out that this theocracy is founded out of a 'lost sense of direction', they have lost their way and turned to government to lead them to God.
You and one or two others have mentioned a coming backlash. Where do you all see it? Who are these people who are going to backlash? When? Do they take checks? Is it tax deductible? Give us hope!
2 - Victor Plenty
Moral absolutes exist, I am sure, but humans lack perfect knowledge of the nature and extent of moral absolutes. This should not stop us from striving to improve our understanding. However, it can and should teach us humility in all such efforts.
My first duty as a judge of moral conduct is to examine my own conduct. Next comes examining how well we fulfill the responsibilities we share together as families, communities, nations, and humankind as a whole.
There are both pragmatic and principled reasons I think this way.
Even if I did somehow obtain perfect knowledge of The One True Absolute Moral Standard(tm), it would be a waste of my time to use that knowledge for judging other people. Most of the moral choices other people make are beyond my control. It is rare even to have significant influence on another person's choices. Complete control over another is impossible.
I am the only person whose choices I can hope to control. This is a pragmatic reason I consider it my first duty to improve my own moral character.
(On the occasions when I indulge the temptation to give other people advice, I seek to leaven it with humor and humility. I don't always succeed in this, but I do try.)
In my considered conviction, freedom of conscience is one of the moral absolutes which really do exist, independent of cultural context or personal beliefs. This is a principled reason I seek to minimize my interference in other people's moral choices.
I mention these ideas to show how a person can believe moral absolutes exist, without trying to impose personal moral beliefs on other people.
3 - swingingpuss
Margaret, thus far this has been one of the most insightful posts I've read. And here I do agree with Victor that certain moral absolutes do exist but we have to apply wisdom in their application.
For example when the British established their rule over India they abolished a number of evil acts such as performance of sati, human sacrifice etc.
Sometimes one has to override cultural and religious boundaries and tackle acts committed against humanity.
4 - rapid
This is not a comment on the article but on certain point made by swingingpuss.
First of all sati and human sacrifice were never widely practiced in India. Of course there were a few instances here and there. But nowhere near the scale of witch-hunting that took place in Europe in the middle ages.
Secondly the British did not suddenly feel the need to enlighten the colonials. It was only because of the concerted efforts of enlightened individuals from within the Indian people that the British passed the laws.
5 - Dave Nalle
>>You and one or two others have mentioned a coming backlash. Where do you all see it? Who are these people who are going to backlash? When? Do they take checks? Is it tax deductible? Give us hope!<<
Yes, they do take checks and also credit cards and PayPal, but they are PACs so I believe it's not tax deductible. You can get all the info on the two main movements to straighten out the GOP at:
Republican Liberty Caucus PAC
It's My Party Too PAC
Visit and read these two sites and you'll get a whole different picture of the GOP. These two groups together probably represent over half of the actual membership of the party either openly or at least as far as real political orientation goes.
Dave
6 - swingingpuss
Rapid, it was through the concentrated efforts of Raja Ram Mohan Roy that sati was abolished and yet one has to credit the Brits for taking the needed action. To go against the native masses is not easy.
Secondly it is an act which is still happening back home.
1987- Roop Kanwar was burnt alive alongside her dead husband in Deorala, Rajasthan and they have temple for her.
6th August 2002- another sati incident was reported from Patna Tamoli Village Madhya Pradesh.
While most Indians condemn these acts yet they have been taking place and those who commit them remain unapologetic and enjoy the protection of the villagers.
7 - swingingpuss
Rapid, one more thing- I'd like to compare caste killings to witching hunting. Even now in states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, beheadings, rape, murder and inhuman exploitation are taking place by the higher castes.
8 - swingingpuss
...need to proof read when burning the midnight oil..'witch hunting'
9 - Margaret Romao Toigo
The backlash is evident in several areas, such as the way that traditional Christmas decorations that many city governments had been putting up for years have now been replaced with secular displays. This was something that used to be pretty much taken for granted, but now it has become an issue.
This trend has has also affected the private business sector in the form of a paradigm shift in which it has become a given that "Happy Holidays" appeals to a larger demographic than "Merry Christmas."
The 10 Commandments have become most decidedly unwelcome in public buildings -- and in places where they had been on display for decades, with nary a complaint until recently.
Meanwhile, Roe v. Wade isn't getting overturned while late-term abortion bans have been struck down, the FMA is pretty much dead in the water and the Constitution Restoration Act -- which has been around for a long time in one form or another -- has about the same chances of being ratified as the Flag Burning Amendment.
Then there was the public outrage over the how the Terri Schiavo case was handled. The "culture of life" activism of some members of Congress and the President was not viewed as heroic, but rather as cynical and transparent political opportunism.
And Dave Nalle has kindly provided us with links to two groups of traditional Republicans who are fed up with the extremist ideals of the GOP's religious/social conservatives.
Now, the social conservatives will tell a different story and characterize their much-smaller-than-it-actually-appears "moral values" movement as a backlash against secularism, indecency, liberalism, abortion, "The Homosexual Agenda," etc. but political movements are not backlashes themselves, even if they can be symptomatic of them.
My advice to the theophobia sufferers is to try and get over themselves enough to at least tone down the Chicken Little rhteoric about theocracy because already-way-too-full-of-themselves religious fundamentalists interpret such talk as a sign of their movement's popularity. And opportunistic politicians are quite willing to reinforce the notion that they've got the secularists, purveyors of indecency, liberals, abortionists, homosexuals, etc. on the run.
So, try to find a little bit of pity in your heart for the fundamentalists -- they only do what they do because they are frightened and confused by modern life in a free and open society -- because our anger gives them the upper hand and our fear gives them strength. And save the scorn for the opportunistic politicians who prey upon the fears of poor lost and confused fundamentalists.