The more knowledge and understanding we gain, the more it leads us to question absolute ideas and the existence of a transcendent influence. The more we question these ideas the more diversity in opinions there is created in a society – this is where you see the principles of relativism appearing. Therefore the further and further away a society goes from absolutism. God starts to become irrelevant – ‘who is this God’ - and man starts to think that he has all the answers.
Absolutism starts to then become an ideal for someone to aspire to, knowing that they will not succeed. For example, in the Roman Catholic Church it is believed a sin to use contraception; yet many R.C followers use contraceptive methods.
I think also a main principle in why absolutism has become unacceptable is because our society has gone away from God. As man becomes more knowledgeable, he becomes more conceited and starts to believe that he has all the answers to everything and therefore he no longer needs a God.
Modern society encompasses a western world and I think one of the main suggestions that question that absolutism is unacceptable within a modern society, is the fact that western civilisations have their principles built on Christian values. You see in the New Testament Jesus Christ attacking absolutism. In many of His teachings He attacks the Jews for keeping the laws and thinking that they are good people, but not applying those laws with compassion or forgiveness.
A good example of this is the story of the woman who was going to be stoned to death for adultery. Jesus said ‘Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone’.
This could be considered as the birth of relativism – to put situations/people – in relation to our own failings; to look beyond the law that says this is right and this is wrong and apply the law with compassion and forgiveness, as Jesus did. He is believed to be without sin and yet He did not condemn the woman.
In our modern Western society we look at the ‘bigger picture’; we look at incidences in more detail, which enables us to understand why actions have taken place in a situation. i.e. An adult murders a child. Instead of sending him straight to prison because the absolute law says murder is wrong, we look to see if the murder could have been committed under diminished responsibility. Therefore the adult was in an unfit state to recognise the consequences of his actions.
In absolutism forgiveness and compassion undermines the law; there is no room for these qualities.
However in looking at this example we can also see that Jesus did not come to squash the laws i.e. He told the woman who was to be stoned to not sin again. Instead his message is to establish a steady balance of absolutism and relativism working alongside each other. We need laws to abide by, otherwise there would be social disintegration and anarchy, but we also need forgiveness and compassion in our society. In a modern society absolutes form a framework against which relative principles can be applied. It could be argued that both principles need to balance/ work alongside each other.
When relativism becomes out of balance to absolutism by a greater proportion, there is an erosion of ideals and common principles. This can become divisive in a society. It could be argued that Britain’s multi – cultural, multi – faith society is falling victim to this.
If we do actually look at our own modern society today, we can see it is quite relativist because there is an acceptance of the diversity of people’s views; however, it would seem that some absolutist ideas are being forced upon us. With the government binging in new laws surrounding the issue of political correctness, we are finding ourselves unable to criticise. For example, the Roman Catholic Church has always believed that homosexuality is wrong. Catholic adoption agencies could be closed, because they are deemed to be discriminating against homosexual couples who are looking to adopting a child. In order for Catholic adoption agencies to survive they could be forced to go against their religious absolute views. Is this in itself morally wrong?
Therefore absolutism in these terms is actually becoming more acceptable in modern society; one could argue specifically in our country, political correctness is forcing people to accept the views of the ‘nanny’ state.
The criticisms of an absolutist view, can be explained by suggesting on a purely practical level, there maybe circumstances in which a moral absolute would appear to be compromised, for example, the use of the atom bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is defended because it brought the Second World War to a speedier conclusion.
Moral absolutism appears to ignore the practical conditions ‘on the ground’. It may be that a supposed moral absolute is observed with no regard to the ‘bigger picture’ in which even greater evils may be perpetrated. In the face of modern criticisms of moral absolutism, it has been argued that a more flexible approach to morality is needed, without compromising the absolute values being proposed. Such a flexible approach would look at the difference between the act and omission.
More so, The Doctrine of Double Effect states that it may be permissible to perform a good act with the knowledge that bad consequences will come about as a result. However, it is always wrong to perform a bad act in order to bring about good effects. The act is judged by its intention rather than its result. For example, a doctor deliberately administering an overdose to end the suffering of a patient has committed a ‘bad’ act, even though his actions have brought about something good from a relativist point of view, considering his opinion in regards to the situation. This is not permissible. A doctor who administers palliative care, and inadvertently hastens death, has committed a good act with bad consequences.
This seems to contradict the absolutist doctrine, as they consider only the act to decide if a moral right or wrong has been committed. In the example above, one could argue that they are going against what they hold as beliefs, as they are looking at the circumstances within the situation – even if it is an exception.
I am now going to look at two absolutist views:
After look at Plato’s theory, he believed that in an absolute world, virtue was an inner state rising from a harmony of health, beauty and strength of character. Plato assumed that a person would only act badly through ignorance – no one would behave badly willingly.
With scientific knowledge we are able to understand that some people act through no fault of their own i.e. the mentally ill are not aware that they are mentally ill. This supports Plato’s theory, as the mentally ill are unaware of any morally wrong actions they may commit and therefore they are not deliberately acting badly. However, corruption in human beings through greed, exploitation and other means, leads people to commit moral wrongs most of the time. By looking at another absolutist view, in particular Christian, it is told that humans are born with sin. They may willingly choose to follow a bad route without any mental illness/health; and therefore face the consequences – if there are any, after this life. This contradicts Plato’s view and by looking at a modern society it is selfish in its function. For example, Global warming has become a concerning issue, however as a modern society we still fuel this issue with burning energy resources that contribute to the effect.
Plato’s view also suggests that man has no free will, if this is so, questions could be raised to ask, what is the point in our creation if we are ‘puppets’. Surely we have to make our own decisions to learn how to know goodness.
Another absolutist which I looked at was Thomas Aquinas, who believed that God created a world with a purpose in mind. Therefore everything had a final cause, which was down to whether their final good was followed through or not. This view suggests that there is a set of moral absolutes, which everyone is aware of unconsciously or consciously, that we have to follow. Yet we have free will, according to the Christian absolute beliefs, which means we are able to make decisions. If Aquinas’ theory were true, then surely there would be no beliefs that contradicted or went against absolutism or his absolute theory.
To conclude, I think that it is apparent that modern society holds both absolute and relative ideas. Throughout history it is seen that the pendulum swings to a lesser or greater degree towards one or the other. Personally I think society recognises this and tries to find a balance between the two, in order to counteract the destructive element associated with either ideal taken to the extreme. Therefore, for this reason I believe that absolutism can never be acceptable in a modern society on its own.
