Moral Absolutism: Right Or Wrong?

Moral absolutism is defined as “the belief that some moral rules are binding on everyone, regardless of cultural differences.”1 Many people support this belief based on the ideals and values of their culture. They think that there should be a specific set of principles protecting and governing all human beings. However, others believe that values can be accepted in one culture and rejected in another culture. This idea is based on the belief that moral principles differ across cultures. The views of the relativist and absolutist are contrary to one another. In this paper, I will argue that the absolutist’s beliefs are well-developed and humble, whereas the relativist’s views are flawed and contradictory.

In Philosophical Dilemmas, Washburn uses an article entitled, “Right for You, Wrong for Me?” to demonstrate an absolutist’s point of view. The absolutist dissects and criticizes the relativist’s beliefs in two main areas. First, he questions the relativist’s belief that an action may be right for one person and unacceptable for another person. Much emphasis and criticism is placed on this concept and the absolutist argues that there is no influential difference between people to justify such a belief. Secondly, the absolutist condemns relativism for its inability to recognize that different cultures encounter one another. He points out that, in the event of cultural contact, an action by a person in one group will affect a person in another group. In this situation, the relativist would say that the action is right for one person, but wrong for the other person. The absolutist proclaims that the possibility of an action being both right and wrong is non-existent. These views of relativism are flawed and contradictory.

“In general, some say that every person must decide what moral principles to adopt. It is a personal decision, and no one can judge another, or say another’s principles are wrong. What is right for you may not be right for me, some say….The relativist is saying that a person’s belief that he should do something is enough to make it morally right that he should do it….Different climates, different diets, different beliefs, different educations are not enough to make an action right in one place and wrong in another….Relativism has another flaw. It does not recognize that people with different principles come into contact….Moral relativism sounds reasonable, until two groups with different values come into contact, and an action by a person in one group affects a person in another group. When that happens, relativism collapses. The relativist who says that the action is both right and wrong isn’t saying anything….That is empty and uninformative….If you are going to have any moral principles at all, then you are going to have to say everyone else should have the same principles. That isn’t arrogant. In fact it is humbling.”2

Premise #1: Geography, beliefs, and education are characteristics of every culture.

Premise #2: Every culture adopts moral principles that are life-governing.

Interim Conclusion #1: Different climates, different diets, different beliefs, different educations are not enough to make an action right in one culture and wrong in another.

Premise #4: If different climates, different diets, different beliefs, different educations are not enough to make an action right in one culture and wrong in another, then when two groups with different values come into contact an action by a person in one group will affect a person in another group.

Premise #5: If different climates, different diets, different beliefs, different educations are not enough to make an action right in one culture and wrong in another, then a group cannot make an action morally right or wrong simply by saying it is right or wrong.

Premise #6: If different climates, different diets, different beliefs, different educations are not enough to make an action right in one culture and wrong in another, then all people around the world share similar cultural beliefs.

Interim Conclusion #2: Every cultural belief consists of basic moral judgments.

Conclusion: All people around the world share similar basic moral judgments.

The absolutist constructs and maintains a sound and valid argument in opposition to moral relativism. I agree with the absolutist’s conclusion because I believe that all the premises are true. He arrives at a conclusion through the isolation and criticism of the major concepts to which moral relativism was founded. He boldly states, “…relativism is a confused and contradictory doctrine.”3 Throughout the article, the absolutist provides detailed, theoretical situations for each of his claims. I believe that through a somewhat brief article, the absolutist manages to disprove the concepts of moral relativism. However, relativists would quickly disagree with this criticism. A relativist would read the absolutist’s argument in premise-conclusion form and disagree with Interim Conclusion #1 and Premise #5. The relativist’s response to Interim Conclusion #1 would state, “Someone might say that one’s society’s rules are objectively ‘better’ than another’s. But that judgment implies that a person can stand outside the two societies and evaluate them on the basis of some independent standard.”4 The relativist is claiming that no one can rise above all societies and make moral judgments about them. Therefore, a relativist would criticize Interim Conclusion #1 with the retort that because no one can rise above all societies, one cannot truthfully state that different beliefs and educations are not enough to make an action right in one culture and wrong in another culture. The relativist’s response to Premise #5 may be that “all people are taught to have a conscience. But different people’s consciences tell them different things about right and wrong”5 and that “there is no difference between what a society believes is right and what is right.”6 Therefore, a relativist would criticize Premise #5 with the retort that “a person’s belief that he should do something is enough to make it morally right that he should do it.”7 These counterarguments seem reasonable and valid. However through the eyes of an absolutist, these retorts seem “empty and uninformative.”8

Through the direct criticism of moral relativism, the absolutist anticipates these objections put forth by relativists. He establishes his criticism in this way to reject the relativist’s argument. In his first strike against moral relativism, the absolutist claims that “the problem isn’t that moral relativists approve of actions that offend me (although they do). The problem is that they cannot explain what they believe in a clear, coherent way.”9 The absolutist supports this claim with the theoretical use of a situation. He uses an example of a woman in Mali, named Mrs. Diarra, and a relativist Frenchwoman, named Mrs. Robert. The woman in Mali helps circumcise her 3-month-old baby, which is an honored tradition and part of her moral principles. However, the Frenchwoman says that, even though she would never perform such an act upon her daughter, the woman in Mali did the right thing according to her moral values. The incoherence of the relativist’s views applied to this story arrives when he says that a person’s belief that he should do something is enough to make it morally right that he should do it. As a refutation to that statement, an absolutist would respond, “If it is right for Diarra to circumcise her daughter because she believes it is right, then it is right for a child molester to abuse children, so long as he believes it is right.”10 This concept makes no sense. Therefore, a relativist cannot explain what he believes in a clear, coherent way. In conclusion of this story, the absolutist states that there is no difference between Mrs. Diarra and Mrs. Robert that is important enough to justify the relativist’s view. The absolutist supports Interim Conclusion #1 in this context through the theoretical use of a real-life situation. He supports and defends Premise #5 as well. He declares, “The idea that what is right for one person may be wrong for another person (in the same situation) is an idea that sounds attractive….And it would be nice if we never had to judge anyone else. But the idea makes no sense.”11 I agree with the absolutist’s statement that if one believes that something is right for one’s self, then one has to believe that it is right for anyone else in similar situations. Relativists cannot provide any important differences that make an action right for one person but wrong for another person. Thus, Premise #5 truthfully states that a group cannot make an action morally right or wrong simply by saying it is right or wrong. The absolutist anticipates the relativist’s objections and provides influential support for his argument.

In conclusion of this paper, I have argued that the absolutist’s beliefs are well-developed and humble, whereas the relativist’s views are flawed and contradictory. The absolutist presents a sound and valid argument against the popular ideals of moral relativism. He criticizes and disproves these ideals through the theoretical use of real-life situations. Although the concepts of moral relativism seem reasonable, the absolutist opposes these contradictory claims. He argues that there is no difference between cultures that is important enough to justify the relativist’s view. Also, he argues that relativism sounds logical until two cultures encounter one another and an action by a person in one culture affects a person in another culture. After the absolutist’s intense criticism and disproving of its concepts, moral relativism collapses.

Bibliography:

Endnotes

1Phil Washburn, Philosophical Dilemmas: A Pro and Con Introduction to the Major Questions, 2nd edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 214.

2Washburn, p.219-221

3Washburn, p. 221

4Washburn, p. 216

5Washburn, p. 216

6Washburn, p. 225

7Washburn, p. 220

8Washburn, p. 221

9Washburn, p. 219

10Washburn, p. 220

11Washburn, p. 220