Moral absolutism

Overview

Moral absolutism is "the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act." (-[W])

In other words:

• The morality of an act does not depend on the act's context
• (Implied) The rules against which all acts are judged do not change over time

Concepts in opposition to moral absolutism therefore include:

• moral relativism, which states that morality only exists relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references.
• the idea that standards of morality can (or should) evolve when challenged by new understanding
• moral consequentialism, i.e. the idea that an act's morality depends solely on the consequences of that act (it's not clear whether said consequences must be the act's intended consequences as well)

Most people apply these concepts in varying amounts; people who insist on applying only one set of rules in all cases tend to be regarded as extremists.

Comments

I think it's entirely possible that there may be some universal standard of good and evil; I think the problem happens when people think they've reached (or been given) a perfect understanding of that standard, and therefore feel free to apply it ruthlessly. People need to be able to question whether their system of morality is applicable in a given situation, and to change it – refine it, hopefully getting closer to an absolute standard, but never claiming to have reached that standard – if it doesn't. Anything else is madness. --Woozle 13:26, 30 July 2006 (EDT)

Related Articles

• Moral absolutism is a particular system of morality.

Reference

• Wikipedia

Examples

• 2006-06-25 What Is This "Crime," Really?: Orson Scott Card criticizes one of the main conservative arguments against US immigration on the grounds that it displays excessive moral absolutism

Notes

This sort of thinking seems to form the basis of much of the extreme right's attitude towards homosexuality, for example: homosexuals don't follow the rule (spelled out where?) that "people should want to marry members of the opposite sex", which is absolute law for all time, so therefore they aren't people. It also seems to be presumed that if you're "not a person", then you're less than or worse than a person, entitled to less respect and fewer (if any) protections.

Quotes

"This thing ... which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retrained." C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, Chapter 2 (see #Reference 1)

"My point is that those who stand outside all judgment of value cannot have any ground for preferring one of their own impulses to another except the emotional strength of the impulse." ... "I am very doubtful weather history shows us one example of a man who, having stepped outside traditional morality and attained power, has used that power benevolently." C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, Chapter 3 (see #Reference 1)

References

Reference 1

http://ornery.org/essays/2006-01-26-1.html