Absolutism And Relativism
Absolutism and relativism are two extreme ethical approaches to reality.
While
they are both valid and supported by facts, they are very contrasting
in their
views. Values are what a person cares about and thinks is
worthwhile. For
example, values can include life, love, religious faith,
freedom, relationships,
health, justice, education, family and many other
things. Usually these values
are what provides the passion in a person's
life, and gives them hope and a
reason for being. A person might go to any
lengths to protect what they feel is
right and to preserve these values.
Values can be divided up into two
subcategories: absolute and relative.
Absolute values deal with conventional
ethics. In absolutism, everything is
certain. Relativism, on the other hand, is
more subjective. It includes
concepts such as utilitarianism and idealism.
Relativism stresses the
idea that nothing is certain. These two ideals are
extremes when approaching
reality and values. An ethical absolutist believes
that there is a single or
universal moral standard that is equally applicable to
all people at all
times, and each society must adhere to them. There is one
moral law, one
universal code, and one eternal standard that govern all people.
Right is
right and wrong is wrong; everything is black and white. There is a
distinct
difference between what is "actually" right and what is
"thought" to be
right. Actions are inherently good or bad, regardless
of the consequences.
They also feel that if two people are in disagreement about
what is right,
then obviously one of them must be mistaken, since ethical
standards are
either right or wrong. Immanuel Kant and his categorical
imperative support
the absolutist's opinions. Kant, a German philosopher, was
one of the
greatest thinkers of all time, and his writings are widely used to
study
ethics and morality. According to him, to possess moral worth is
more
important than to possess intelligence, humor, strength or any other
talent of
the mind or body. He feels that moral worth has absolute value.
When faced with
a moral decision, one test of a moral act is to ask oneself,
"Is this the
kind of act that everyone should perform?" This question can
determine
whether a given principle is moral and objective or merely
subjective. Immanuel
Kant stated, "There is...but one categorical
imperative, namely, this: Act
only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the
same time will that it should
become a universal law" (M-WDQ). Universal
principles impose categorical
imperatives that demand that a person act in a
certain fashion. A categorical
imperative is unconditional and moral. For
example, "Keep your
promises" or "Don't lie". The opposite of this is
the
hypothetical imperative, which is conditional on something. People who
follow
Kant's theories, Kantians, defend his principles. In his article
in The New
Republic, Michael Sandel wrote, "Kant argued that empirical
principles,
such as utility, were unfit to serve as basis for the moral law.
A wholly
instrumental defense of freedom and rights not only leaves rights
vulnerable,
but fails to respect the inherent dignity of persons" (Sandel).
In the view
of modern-day Kantians, certain rights are so fundamental that
even the general
welfare cannot override them. The extreme opposite of
absolutism is relativism.
Relativists feel that circumstances arise that
can alter cases, and make
exceptions to any rule. It is okay to have everyday
standards to live by, but
exceptions are always welcome since they are right
and good. The judgment of
good of bad is based upon the result of consequence
of the act rather than the
act itself. Contrary to ethical absolutism,
ethical relativism claims that if
two individuals disagree on a moral view,
both can be right, since moral views
are not right or wrong. The two people
can both be right because "Cultural
circumstances alter the way people think
about their environment, thus emphasis
of moral or immoral judgment is placed
on differing actions in differing
cultures" (Sherman). Relativism is
subjective and seeks to gain happiness;
therefore, this ideal makes perfect
sense. The article "The Paralysis of
Absolutophobia" by Robert Simon
gives reasons why relativism is so
prevalent among students today. He feels
that students' have their own
individual interpretations of multiculturalism
and postmodernism, and that any
criticism of another culture's practices is a
kind of cultural imperialism.
Also, because we all speak from some
particular perspective, truly objective
moral knowledge is impossible to
attain (Simon). In the same article Robert
Simon speaks about having
absolute values. He feels that to be tolerant and
willing to consider the
viewpoints and arguments of others is in itself a moral
judgment. Also, there
is nothing about moral judgment that requires
inflexibility, intolerance,
fanaticism or an inability to recognize that people
will disagree. And
finally, Simon feels that people should replace
absolutophobia with a greater
appreciation and openmindness. Part of the
relativist view deals with
utilitarianism, which was supported by John Stuart
Mill. His view defends
liberal principles in the name of maximizing the general
welfare. Referring
to Mill's utilitarian views, in his article, Sandel remarks,
"The state
should not impose on its citizens a preferred way of life, even
for their own
good, because doing so will reduce the sum of human happiness, at
least in
the long run; better that people choose for themselves even if, on
occasion,
they get it wrong" (Sandel). In On Liberty, Mill writes,
"The only freedom
which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good
in our own way, so
long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or
impede their
efforts to obtain it". In one respect, utilitarianism would
seem well suited
to liberal purposes. Seeking to maximize overall happiness does
not require
judging people's values, only aggregating them. Utilitarians
sometimes defend
individual right on the grounds that respecting them now will
serve utility
in the long run. All of Immanuel Kant's opinions strongly opposed
this. It is
obvious that ethical absolutism and relativism are extreme
opposites. They
each have strong evidence backing them up and forming separate
opinions. Even
great philosophers took stands on absolutism and relativism.
Immanuel
Kant supports absolutism, while J.S. Mill supports relativism. Many
people,
however, feels that the best solution lies as a "happy medium"
that lies
somewhere in the middle. I agree with that notion. As the saying
goes,
"Moderation is key"; I don't feel that an extreme is ever the way
to
go. Relativists see happiness and idealism, which I feel is important. I
also
think that it is important to seek the greatest good for the greatest
number of
people. Absolutism, on the other hand, has absolute certainty. I
feel it is
important to also have assured realities that you can look forward
to relying
on. I disagree with the absolutist opinion that people cannot have
different
views on moral issues. I think that people, depending on their
experiences,
culture, age, religion, and social status have differing
opinions on topics.
That is all a part of the world, and its diverse
qualities and characteristics.
Bibliography
Halpin, James. Good
Conversation: An Invitation to Moral Disclosure. Simon
& Schuster Custom
Publishing. Needham, Massachusetts, 1997. Kant, Immanuel.
Merriam-Webster
Dictionary of Quotations. Merriam-Webster, Inc. New York, New
York, 1992.
p 15. Sandel, Michael. "Morality and the liberal ideal: must
individual
rights betray the common good?". The New Republic. May 7, 1984
v190 p15
Sherman, Bob. Basic Ethics and Morals. World Wide Web:
http://www.flash.net/~bob001/basics.html.
Simon, Robert L. "The Paralysis
of Absolutophobia". From The Chronicle
of Higher Education.