Moral absolutism is the ethical view that there are absolute standards of right and wrong that are unchanging and universally applicable. According to moral absolutism, actions are inherently moral or immoral regardless of context or consequences. This contrasts with moral relativism, which holds that morality is not fixed but variable depending on cultural, temporal, or situational factors.
Moral absolutism is closely associated with deontological ethics and divine command theory. Deontologists argue that the morality of actions depends on their adherence to moral rules or duties. Divine command theorists believe God determines morality and has revealed absolute moral truths in religious scriptures like the Bible. Both perspectives contend moral absolutes are real, objective facts independent of human opinion.
Key aspects of moral absolutism include:
Objective moral facts
Absolutists argue that moral values like goodness, justice, and human rights exist objectively, whether or not people acknowledge them. Moral statements are declarations of moral facts, not mere expressions of subjective preferences. What is morally right or wrong does not depend on what people think but on the intrinsic nature of an action itself.
Universality
Moral absolutists maintain that moral principles apply universally, regardless of circumstances, culture, or setting. What is morally forbidden, like murder or theft, is wrong for all people at all times. Moral duties are binding on all rational persons. Absolutism rejects ethical variability between societies or eras.
Divine authority
Many moral absolutists ground universal and objective moral truths in the commands or nature of God. Divine command theory argues that morality depends on God’s will – what is right is what God decrees. God’s morally perfect nature also provides an absolute standard for ethics. The Bible records God’s revealed moral absolutes that all human beings have a duty to obey.
Non-consequentialism
Absolutist theories judge the morality of actions based on adherence to moral rules and duties, not their consequences. Utilitarian cost-benefit analyses that weigh harms against benefits are irrelevant. It would be wrong to murder an innocent person even if it brought about greater aggregate happiness. The ends don’t justify the means if the means are inherently unethical.
Exceptionlessness
Moral absolutists think moral principles admit of no exceptions. It is always wrong to deliberately kill innocent people, lie, steal, cheat, or break promises – no matter what other factors may be in play. Absolute moral norms bind absolutely and unconditionally. The belief in exceptionless moral absolutes contrasts with more flexible forms of deontology and ethical relativism.
Criticisms of Moral Absolutism
Critics make several arguments against moral absolutism, including:
The diversity of moral beliefs
If there were objective moral truths, most people would recognize them. But there is considerable ethical disagreement both between societies and within them. For instance, some cultures are more collectivist while others are highly individualistic. Such diversity undermines claims of self-evident, universal moral absolutes.
Changing moral standards
Throughout history, actions once considered morally acceptable like slavery, patriarchal dominance, and colonialism have come to be seen as profoundly unethical. Moral attitudes evolve over time rather than remaining fixed, which contradicts absolutist claims of timeless moral facts.
Context-dependence
The morality of acts seems heavily influenced by situational variables and motives. Killing in self-defense is viewed differently than murder, and euthanasia out of mercy is not the same as taking a life out of hatred. Moral absolutism ignores how context matters.
Negative consequences
Strict adherence to moral absolutes can sometimes lead to grave harms that ethical systems focused more on consequences might avoid. Absolutist pacifism may prevent the defense of innocent life, while deontological prohibitions on lying could require revealing information that gets people killed.
Unattainable ideal
Given complex real-world dilemmas and constraints, absolute morality may be an unrealistic standard. Demanding perfect compliance with exceptionless moral absolutes holds people to an impossibly high standard they will inevitably fall short of due to human fallibility.
Arbitrariness
Moral absolutism requires that some actions be condemned as immoral regardless of reasons, outcomes, or circumstances. But it is unclear on what basis some moral duties are absolute while others are relative. What makes absolutes like prohibitions on lying and murder objective and universal, while other rules are not?
Theoretical incoherence
Some philosophers like R.M. Hare argue that moral absolutism is theoretically inconsistent. Making a moral judgment inherently requires taking conditions and likely results into account rather than relying solely on rules. Moral thought and language presuppose a degree of relativism and utilitarianism.
Forms of Moral Absolutism
There are differing philosophical foundations for moral absolutism, including:
Divine command theory
Right and wrong are defined by the commands of God. Actions are moral if God wills them and immoral if God forbids them. Divine command is arguably the most historically influential form of moral absolutism. Biblical divine command ethics forbid murder, adultery, theft, false witness, and covetousness.
Natural law theory
This holds that objective moral truths are grounded in the intrinsic purposes and innate nature of human life and flourishing. Natural law theory commands virtues that fulfill human ends like life, knowledge, community, and beauty, while prohibiting vicious acts like murder and deceit that contradict human flourishing.
Kantian deontology
Immanuel Kant argued that moral absolutes are requirements of reason that all rational beings can identify. Moral duties derive from the categorical imperative to act only on principles that could hold for everyone. Kant saw moral absolutes like keeping promises and respecting human dignity as rationally necessary.
Platonic realism
On this view, moral facts like goodness, truth, and justice have an objective reality that exists independently of minds and perceptions. These universals or abstract objects are timeless ethical truths that remain constant despite cultural flux. Moral propositions describe this immaterial moral reality.
Religious fundamentalism
Scriptural literalists argue that morals are grounded in the commands and principles of a sacred religious text. Rules in holy books like the Koran or the Bible reflect God’s unchanging moral law that all should follow. Fundamentalists reject revisionist reinterpretations that relativize scriptural morality.
Moral Absolutism in the Bible
Biblical texts contain elements that both support and challenge moral absolutism:
Absolutist themes
The Bible depicts God as an absolute divine lawgiver who does not change: “I the Lord do not change” (Malachi 3:6). Moral rules like the Ten Commandments seem to be universal and exceptionless ethical principles, not limited cultural adaptations. The New Testament affirms core moral teachings like love, justice, and sexual ethics as timeless and indisputable.
Relativist themes
However, Old Testament narratives describe changing situational ethics as cultures evolve and prophets gain new insight. God even reverses apparent moral absolutes like when he commands Abraham to kill Isaac despite the injunction “thou shalt not murder.” Jesus criticizes rigid legalism and affirms the spirit over the letter of divine law.
Contextual ethics
While some biblical principles appear absolute, most ethical instruction is contingency-based and context-dependent. Laws and rules come with conditions, exceptions, and caveats. The Biblefrequently assesses actions based on motives and outcomes, not just duty compliance. General ideals require prudential judgment in application.
Moral progress
The trajectory of Scripture describes moral advancement over time toward greater fulfillment of ideals like peace, renewal, and spiritual liberty. New Covenant ethics surpass the Old Covenant law. This moral progress implies that biblical ethics are not static but evolving as humans gain wisdom.
Divine consistency
A core biblical theme is God’s eternal consistency of character despite humanity’s changes. “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind” (Numbers 23:19). However situational biblical ethics may seem, God’s nature remains unwavering.
Overall, the Bible reflects moral complexity. Biblical authors do not espouse moral absolutism explicitly, though they assume objective divine morality. Specific injunctions require prudential application and at times yield to higher principles. The scriptural approach affirms moral realism but not rigid rule-based ethics.
Key Questions About Biblical Absolutism
Debates around interpreting the Bible’s view of moral absolutism consider questions like:
Are any biblical moral injunctions truly absolute?
Candidates include prohibitions on idolatry, murder, adultery, and false witness. But most biblical commands come with nuance and context. Appeals to general principles like love also constrain rules. Overall the Bible appears to affirm divine moral consistency over specific absolutist edicts.
Does biblical ethics evolve progressive or remain static?
Trajectories like expanding inclusion suggest moral progress, but Christian ethics still esteem core biblical principles. Biblical morality may be characterized by continuity-in-change rather than either sheer absolutism or relativism. The spirit of divine ethics adapts even as God remains steadfast.
Are principles or rules more foundational to biblical ethics?
Although biblical lists of moral injunctions seem absolutist, Jesus’ teaching prioritizes principles like mercy over strict Sabbath rules. But principles still require concrete expression in shared moral norms. Biblical ethics incorporates both inspirational ideals and time-tested rules.
Is context vital for interpreting biblical moral teachings?
Biblical authors tailor ethical instruction to audiences and situations. Applying biblical morality today requires understanding scripture in ancient contexts then translating timeless principles into apt modern forms. Simplistic “dictionary” readings out of context distort biblical ethics.
Do moral conflicts indicate ethical absolutes are unattainable ideals?
Biblical narratives involve tragic moral trade-offs where obeying one imperative means violating another. This highlights how absolute obedience to ethics is beyond human capability. But sometimes choosing the lesser wrong pleases God more than vain efforts at perfection.
These debates reveal the nuanced complexity around applying biblical ethics. Moral absolutism arguably misrepresents scripture by downplaying provisionality in favor of rigid rules. The Bible offers inspiration toward the good more than commandments to be kept.
Alternatives to Moral Absolutism
Other ethical perspectives include:
Contextual ethics
This acknowledges moral truths but holds their application depends on circumstances. Contextual ethics resists inflexible rules and weighs factors like outcomes, character, and cultural dynamics on a case-by-case basis.
Ethical pluralism
This holds several viable moral frameworks with different rules and values may coexist. Contradictions between systems are inevitable since ethics is complex, not absolute. Respectful dialogue enables cooperation between divergent philosophies.
Principled relativism
Moral principles can remain objectively true without requiring identical expression. Principled relativism applies core virtues like compassion variably in differing cultural contexts. Not all relativity contradicts moral truth.
Value pluralism
This stance posits multiple legitimate yet conflicting moral values, like fairness versus loyalty, or liberty versus equality. Moral dilemmas and trade-offs inevitably arise. Compromise is needed between incommensurable goods.
Rejecting absolutism need not entail total subjectivism. Most critics of absolutism seek a middle way between extremes. Contextualism, pluralism, relativism-with-principles, and value trade-offs offer alternatives that uphold moral truth while acknowledging life’s messiness.
Conclusion
Moral absolutism exerts an ongoing influence through its cores intuitions of ethical universality and objectivity. However, in practice applying ostensibly absolute biblical injunctions involves complex situational discernment and prudential judgment. Christian ethics may be best understood as divine ideals to strive imperfectly toward rather than rigid codes to punctiliously obey. The Bible offers moral guidance for navigating life’s difficult decisions, not easy absolute answers. While biblical authors assume morality is real, they tend to prioritize values like justice, mercy, and faithfulness over specific immutable rules. Overall, scripture points toward the love of God and neighbor – the greatest absolute that relativizes all others.