The renowned philosopher, Plato (428-347 BC), is classified as an ethical absolutist and believed that moral absolutes such as goodness and justice existed in some other way and form, which were beyond the normal perceptions of our world. He maintained these beliefs and argued that this ‘other-world’ was inhabited by the forms, which possessed the true meaning of reality. In addition, he described these views through similes which included the Sun, the Twice Divided Line and the Cave; In ‘The Republic’, Plato uses the parable of the Cave to indicate that it is up to the individual to ‘break free’ from the darkness of the cave – represented by our ignorance, and to find the real forms which are found in reality. He also uses the example of the ‘Euthyphro dilemma’ (where Euthyphro intends to prosecute his father for the killing of a peasant), in order to illustrate and identify whether an action is classified as good or not, independent of God’s commands. In addition, because Plato was a realist, he held that moral statements were either true or false in so far as they correspond to an absolute moral order.
The divine command theory is the view that moral actions are those which conform to God's will. Charity, for example, is morally proper because God endorses it, and murder is wrong because God condemns it (according to the Bible). It is important to declare that there are both normative and metaethical versions of this theory. The normative version proposes a test for determining whether any action is right or wrong: if it conforms to God's will, it is morally permissible, if it does not, then it is impermissible. As a normative theory, the divine command theory is difficult to maintain given the epistemological problems of accessing the will of God, while the metaethical version simply makes the factual claim that God's will is the foundation of morality and consequently the content of God's will does not have to be explored. There are three ways that the divine command theory can be understood. The weakest version claims only that, within certain religious communities, the meaning of the statement, "charity is good," is that God wills us to be charitable. A stronger version of the divine command theory concedes that charity is morally good in and of itself, but that God's will provides us with the motivation to be charitable. Theoretically, unbelievers could also act morally, but it would only be by accident since unbelievers would lack the motivation for consistent moral behaviour. The strongest version of the divine command theory states that morality is a creation of God's will. According to this view, charity is good because God has willed that charity is good. Reference with regard to this theory can also be made to biblical scriptures including Joshua and the walls of Jericho, where it is claimed Joshua obeyed and conformed to God’s command.
In contrast to this view, A.J.Ayer declared, “No morality can be founded on authority, even if the authority were divine”, which stated the view that surely an action such as murder is wrong, not just because God condemns it.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) is also regarded as an absolutist and is recognized as one of the most important figures in Catholic theology. He maintained the belief of the ‘sanctity of life’ (i.e. opposed to abortion) and derived many of his ideas and beliefs from the Greek philosopher, Aristotle (384-322 BC). In ‘Summa Theologica’, he describes natural law as a moral code existing within the purpose of nature, which in turn was created by God; “Law is nothing else than an ordination of reason for the common good promulgated by the one who is in charge of the community”. Aquinas’ approach to theology reflects the belief that God reveals specific commands for the development of natural law, by which natural theology (which was based on human reason) is opposed to revealed theology (which was based on revelations by God); “To disparage the dictate of reason is equivalent to condemning the command of God”. Within Aquinas’ theory (of natural law) he held that there were four secondary precepts (do not murder, do not abort unborn, defend the defenceless and do not commit suicide) and five primary precepts (self-preservation and the preservation of the innocent, continuation of the species through reproduction, education, live in society and worship God) which combine to promote the idea of ‘Do good and avoid evil’. It is important to mention that the strengths of natural law are in turn the strengths of an absolutist deontological view on morality and therefore this theory provides justification and support for certain core ideas, such as human rights and equality.
James Rachels (University of Alabama), refers to the absolute rules of the ‘core of ethics’ by asking the question, ‘Does it promote human welfare?’ He declares that by applying this question and idea, it is possible to judge whether an action is right or wrong because it determines whether any harm will be caused to another being. In addition, he explains that before we carry out an action, we must remember that we should only ‘do to others as we would want them to do to us’. Therefore, we can apply this method of enquiry to the ‘Friedrichshof case’ – does Otto Mule promote human welfare? When we look at this question and reflect on all the evidence, the only possible decision, which can be made, is that Otto Mule’s beliefs and practices are morally wrong.
As described previously, it is possible to argue that Christianity is an absolute religious belief, for the reason that Christians are obliged to follow the Ten Commandments set by God, such as when God supposedly asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. However, it is important to mention that over a period of time, various forms of Christianity (and other religions) have developed which all hold slightly different perceptions towards moral conduct and religious beliefs (such as Protestant and Catholic for example). Therefore, I believe we have to consider the evolution of religion, and view certain religious issues with a more relativist than absolutist approach – to respect each others religious views even thought they may be different to ours.
The anthropologist William Graham Summer, who investigated cultural diversity, concluded that the existence of diverse moral codes implies that morality is not absolute (morality representing ‘socially approved habits’) – “The ‘right’ way is the way which the ancestors used and which has been handed down…”.
In conclusion, relativism explains the existence of the different values that people hold and is a flexible ethical system that can accommodate the wide diversity of lifestyles found in the modern world. However, absolutism provides a fixed ethical code to measure and provides clear guidelines of behavior, but consequently does not take into account the circumstances of the situation. An example to illustrate how absolutism benefits human beings is the ‘United Nations Declaration of Human Rights’ which declares a set of absolutes that apply to all people, irrespective of social, political or economic circumstances. A final point to mention is that, if the relative belief that differing moral codes should all be supported was adopted universally, relativism itself would become an ‘absolute moral code’.