MORALS: RELATIVE OR ABSOLUTE?
By Timothy Glover
The answer each person gives to this moral question will manifest itself in actions. In our age, public education has influenced young minds toward relativism. Has this improved our society or weakened it? To evaluate whether morals are relative or absolute, it is only fair to know what these terms mean.
One view is that one objective moral code is applicable to everyone in every generation. It exists independent of anyone’s consent. Relativism accepts many moral decisions that are subjective to the views of people at a given time and place. This view maintains that whatever people believe is right or wrong, is the moral code for them. Relativism argues that “morals” by definition are the customs of a group that differs from other groups.
Therefore, they are the product of habits that form the mores of a society. Of course, the definitions of terms need to be understood. Clearly, absolutists use the term “morals” in a different way. Perhaps “standard,” “model” or “rule” would suffice. Still, haggling over terms will not change the distinct difference existing between the two ideas.
The question is essentially this: Are the customs and habits of a group “right” or “wrong”. If not, then Hitler may have been a very good “moral” man. If we must view him as “morally good” because he did what was right for him, what right do we have to judge him negatively? Was it morally right to torture alleged witches? The people of that day certainly thought they were eradicating evil in their community. Are we forced to conclude that there are no “better moral actions?” Are our prisons full of innocent people who should carry no shame because they did what was right in their own eyes but broke societies norms?
Relativists conclude that since there is no universal action accepted by all societies as good, there are no universals. But, could not the variation in different codes exist because some cultures are ignorant of the absolute moral code? The fact that what is valued by a society varies does not prove that what is valuable varies.
The real difference between these two schools of thought exists because some believe there is a universal law giver while others see no evidence of it. If there is a God, there are absolutes. If not, there are no absolutes. If there are no absolutes, then the relativists have a problem of determining a code by which to live. If it is the moral code of the majority, then the minority and reformers are immoral (Jesus, too). If the minority is selected, then our legal system is unjust to condemn a criminal since their moral codes are no better or worse. If there is no code to follow, then we encourage each other to choose the easier and more convenient code which allows everyone to be a law unto themselves. If there is no God or absolutes, why not abuse an innocent child if it brings you pleasure? Why not kill if you think it’s justified or steal if you want something. The path is only a downward spiral and explains our society’s decadence.
Return Home
| The Sinner | Evil | Cain | Lifestyles
| Lying
| Hypocrite
| Sin-1
| Sin-2
| Aids
| Morals
| Sexual
| Leopard
| |