Relativism vs Absolutism
Collapse
Top of Form
Ethical relativism claims that what is right or wrong can vary from one person to another (Jones, 14). In one type of ethical relativism, moral subjectivism, moral judgements are entirely subjective and are based on ones personal preference (Jones, 14). In another type of ethical relativism, cultural relativism, what is determined to be right versus wrong is dependent on ones culture (Jones, 15). On the other hand, ethical absolutism refers to what is right or what is wrong regardless of what individual people think. Ethical absolutism means there are concrete moral principles that do not vary based on individual opinion or cultural influence (Jones, 21).
A notable weakness of ethical absolutism is that followers of absolutism tend to be intolerant of those who oppose them or diverge from their absolute philosophies on moral concerns. Tolerance of different viewpoints on moral issues is both a strength and weakness of cultural relativism. This is because tolerance is a core value of relativism, but relativism claims that there are no ethical absolutes, even tolerance. Thus, relativism cannot rely on tolerance as a binding moral value since there are no absolutes, which unwinds relativism at its core (Jones, 23). Another argument against relativism is the problem of specificity. As stated previously, cultural relativism claims that moral beliefs are created by social groups but cannot define the group. In this sense moral beliefs about what is right and what is wrong are only applicable to the specific group, but what is that group is a subgroup to a larger group which belongs to an even larger group? This is where problems arise (Jones, 24). Reduction to absurdity is another argument against relativism. Relativism states that an individual is subject to their own opinion and preference on what is right and wrong. However, when an individual decides an action that is agreeably immoral such as terrorism, racism or antisemitism is morally right within his or her own beliefs, this is where relativism falls apart (Jones, 26).
Christian ethics is absolutist, not relativistic. There are clear instructions outlined in the Bible about what is right and what is wrong in the eyes of God. There are no exceptions or exemptions to the word of God, as we are all followers of Christ and are held to equal moral standards. The Bible is a source of genuine knowledge for human beings-not mere preferences or personal values (McQuilkin, 14). The Bible includes guidance that is moral facts, which is consistent with ethical absolutism.
Romans 14-15 reads if your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. This verse ties back in the idea of tolerance, which as an absolute value coincides with absolutism but agrees with the general concept behind relativism, where each persons own beliefs should be respected. Each person has a right to a conscience and all followers of Christ must respect each others convictions. The Bible provides moral facts about what is right and wrong rather than allowing for personal preferences, but as seen in Romans 14-15 one is still to respect the beliefs of others.
Jones. Moral Reasoning: An Intentional Approach to Distinguishing Right from Wrong.. [Liberty University Online Bookshelf].
McQuilkin, Robertson, and Paul Copan. An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in the Way of Wisdom, InterVarsity Press, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=3316885.
Bottom of Form
