Is Morality Relative or Absolute?

Many of the biggest hot-topic issues in the world today require us to think deeply about morality. Every day there is a new moral outrage somewhere in the news, but also some praiseworthy event which we can be pleased about. Common discussion topics range from the ethics of big corporations and the call for governments to protect vulnerable citizens at the public level, down to the personal moral dilemmas we face in our everyday lives.

"arrows" by Dean Hochman / CC BY 2.0

Two of the biggest cultural debates involving Christians right now are the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage (SSM for short). Many people in our society view abortion as a morally good option for women facing difficult or unwanted pregnancies, and they see any public opposition to abortion as being morally wrong. Similarly a lot of people believe that SSM is morally good and that denying a same-sex couple the right to legally marry is an example of evil.

Ultimately we will decide for ourselves what we believe is right and wrong, but is that all morality is? Just a choice we make for ourselves about what constitutes good and bad or right and wrong? Let’s investigate the different views of morality and see if we can tease out some truth.

Moral Relativism

One of the common views of morality today is Moral Relativism, an idea related to relativistic claims about truth, which I have written about before. The moral relativist claims that morals are simply personal and subjective value judgements about what is right and wrong, and that each person’s individual belief about moral issues are equally valid. They reject the idea that morality exists as an external standard by which our behaviour can be measured, preferring to see moral views as merely preferences. On this view we pick and choose our moral stances based on what we as individuals think and feel is morally acceptable.

The moral relativist would say that the statement “abortion is wrong” is morally equivalent with the statement “abortion is good”. Neither is right or wrong, they are just different views, and they are true for the person who holds those views.

But moral relativism has an inherent problem. If moral choices can be made simply according to our preferences, then we can feel free to ignore people who disagree with us no matter what their moral values are, because we don’t share their preferences. We can decide that in our personal moral code, murder is acceptable and that it’s okay to rip people off. And it doesn’t matter what other people think or say about our moral code, because our morality is based on our own opinion.

When we adopt a relativistic view of morality, we throw out the classical, intuitive concepts of good and bad that we learn and understand as children, and subsequently we lose something called “moral duties”. Moral duties are the responsibilities we have to do what is good and right, and to avoid doing evil. Most people would agree that we have this responsibility, and this is one of the clues that something bigger than relativistic morality exists.

Most pro-abortion and SSM lobbyists consider their views to be absolutely and objectively right, for all people everywhere. They believe their moral views are more than just personal inclinations, so they are committed to the idea that there is an external, absolute moral standard to which all people are accountable, and which overarches our personal standards for determining right and wrong.

Moral Absolutism

This overarching moral standard can be called Moral Absolutism. People who believe in the existence of objective, absolute morals see that a kind of moral code is hard-wired into humanity, and that we are all responsible for keeping to it. Unlike relativism, where moral values are located in the individual and are arbitrary, absolutism contends that a universal moral standard exists beyond the individual, and that ethical behaviour is required of us as a result.

I believe that the evidence we have points to the existence of a universal, external, absolute moral code. From an early age, our moral experiences teach us that right and wrong exist, that some actions are bad and that others are good. Our conscience tells us – sometimes quite painfully – when we have hurt someone or acted selfishly. When we are wronged we get angry and we suffer deeply when we experience injustice. If morality is only the individual preferences of ourselves and others, would we still have these same profound experiences? Absolute morality is needed to explain our experiences of moral blame – both in ourselves and in others.

We also need absolute morality to explain how we can recognise something as being good. Humanitarians sometimes receive awards for acts that are universally recognised as good. This points to the existence of a standard of good that each of us can judge goodness by. Every person makes these value judgements every day, showing that we all recognise good and bad. Hitler’s treatment of the Jews is bad. Giving shelter to homeless people is good. Rape is wrong. It is morally right to save a drowning child. Every human being has access to this standard and can recognise when an action deserves moral praise or moral blame.

We might disagree on the some of the content of the absolute moral standard, but if you throw out enough moral scenarios, most people will eventually agree that such a standard must exist. So how do we explain the existence of a personally-binding moral law? Where does it come from? And what are the implications for each view of moral origins? 

Check back soon for Part 2 where we will discuss the competing explanations for how morality came to exist, and identify which of these origins is the best explanation for the kind of objective morality we experience in reality.