Functional absolutism vs. moral relativism
When I first started college, one of the courses I took was an ethics class introducing the idea of moral relativism. The takeaway, as I recall, is there are no moral absolutes.
I have often wondered if such thinking began with a desire to emulate scientific expressions. How often have we heard the phrase, "everything is relative"? Though one has little to do with the other, is this a phonetic aping of the scientific concept of relativity? And the idea, “there are no absolutes” — might this have come from the fact all things are in motion, nothing is static, even their substance? For instance, while a chair appears stationary its substance resonates with fast-moving atomic particles. The idea that nothing is absolute may have gained credence from the thinking since everything is in motion and all is relative, and nothing is static, nothing is therefore absolute.
Yet, science provides absolutes. Gravity is a known constant, and in math, two plus two always equals four. Then when it comes to the fact that though all things are in motion, there’s still the function of stationary basis within the field of gravity. For instance, when objects are in contact, one serves as a static base for another. The earth serves as a stationary object from which rockets can be launched. Roads, though they are ever moving, expanding, and contracting and are atomistically animated, serve as a static basis over which our cars move. Ball courts and fields serve a stationary foundation over which games are played. When two objects collide one or both, usually come to a stationary rest, at least for a moment.
I never bought into the notion of moral relativism. The idea that there are no moral absolutes has, I believe, lent itself to a gradual chipping away at the absolutes given by our Judeo-Christian heritage, which not only serves as a basis for our justice system, but is a constructive foundation for respectful behavior and social order in general. That chipping away has now made it, among other bad effects, okay to lie or steal. Unfortunately, it has become a norm for some that their social and business interactions include it as a means of getting things done or having one’s way. Remember the political leader, when asked why he lied about a presidential candidate running for office, he said, "We won, didn't we."
Of course, the Bible does provide a degree of relative understanding. Proverbs 6:30 mentions empathy for one who steals food to keep from starving. Yet if caught, the penalty was pretty stiff — that person was to reimburse seven times the value of the thing stolen. A far cry from "it's ok to steal as long it's under $1,000" approach that has had such a wrecking effect on property and business.
I propose the idea that functional absolutism — for example, that one should never lie or steal — serves a better basis for behavior and social order than has moral relativism.
Patrick Scott Smith is a history writer, inventor and entrepreneur from Nixa.
This article originally appeared on Springfield News-Leader: Functional absolutism is better for society than moral relativism
