Moral Absolutism

The term “moral relativist” has been used time and again to attack those of
us who were not given our ethical framework by the writing of bronze age
tribesman, or congressional decree. The implicit claim being that if someone has
morals that adapt to the situation they are somehow less equipped to make ethical
decisions. And that those decisions are subjective anyway so effectively without a
list of absolute morals a person can do “whatever they want”, as if by default, all
people want to wreak havoc on the world. What I find ironic is that precisely the
reverse is true.

Moral absolutism because it ranks and lists potential actions, it is perhaps the
root cause of all human atrocity. This is in part because one can take any action not
specifically mentioned on said list, and it’s ok. This is also because with a
hierarchical list of moral rules, one becomes free to ignore all rules but the top one,
so long as they can make the claim that actions taken in violation of secondary
rules were in service to the primary one. This leads to some astonishing acts of
human cruelty, acts so vile that even those taking the actions sometimes hate
them.

We attack government actions for being unethical when they torture people
or cause wars, we revile those who murder people, or disfigure their children, in the
service of god, but the fact is they are both acting in perfect accord with their
morality. And if you are a moral absolutist, they may have been acting in yours as
well. The only difference is your judgment of whether or not those actions we
indeed in service of the top rules, which are ususally patriotism, and god’s will
respectively.

The interesting consequence of this is that even if you do adhere to a set of

moral absolutes, you still personally get to decide on the significance of any
subjective language in your codified morality, and whether or not a given action is
in keeping with the primary rule. This means that you are also, in a way, a moral
relativist. But now you’re a moral relativist saddled with this charter that someone
else developed.

On the other hand an open moral relativist, while it’s true may in theory
construe the dismemberment of a child somehow moral, because there are no hard
and fast rules, they may also never be called upon to act in violation of their own
morality. They will never take an action they feel was not in the overall good. These
are the conscientious objectors of our society. They will adapt to new technology
and novel situations. At first there were only moral relativists, but they made the
mistake of writing down their conclusions rather than how they came to them.
Sometimes they would write down these rules that they have developed for
themselves, and others would read them, and they were in line with the reader’s
own instincts, so he adhered to them and then wanted their progeny and their
subordinates to adhere to them. That is the birth of religion and tradition. Nothing is
wrong with saying something like “thou shalt not murder” or “it’s illegal to steal”,
but what happens if you have a person who is going to murder others unless he
himself is murdered? And what happens if technology allows for you to acquire
something from someone without the loss of it on their part being required?

The common answer is to change interpretation, and engage the subjective

option. For example, the claim that executing a murderer is not murder, it’s simply
killing, or it’s a solder’s duty. “Oh that doesn't count.” Or simply adding additional
rules, such as its stealing if a person wasn’t paid for it, they don’t actually have to
lose it, as in the case with software ‘piracy’.

The problem is, you’re back where you started because the same
interpretative flexibility you sought to remove by codifying morality, is required
when determining just what those codifications mean in relation to reality. Hence
then entire subculture of lawyers, and theologians.

The simple answer is to reject codification entirely and approach any given
situation with your heart and your head. Ask yourself, “Is this right?”, and work from
there. If it confuses you, don’t seek an authoritarian answer, ask questions, explore,
gather opinions, once you have enough information the answer will become clear to
you.