The Question Of Ethics What does absolute values mean?

[mitchellmckain 0]

I would like everyone to consider discussing the topic of ethics, which is the study of values or morality and especially the concepts of right, wrong, good, evil, and responsibility. I am particularly interested in understanding this question I often hear concerning whether one believes in "absolute values".

 

In taking a look at what is written about ethics, one finds in the broadest strokes these two major questions: one is the basic nature of values, and the second concerns the basis for determining these values. The first is the question of "meta-ethics" and there are two major positions: There are those who say that values are not independently real but are the creations of human beings. Then there are those who say that values are independently real and must be discovered rather than invented.

 

The second question is the question of "normative ethics" and there are three major positions: There are the virtue ethicists who see values as being derived from ideals of human nature, often called virtues. Then there are the deontological ethicists who see values as being derived from duties and rules. Finally there are the consequential ethicists who believe that values are derived from the consequences of action. In other words, to put it simply we can ask if a moral or good action is that which 1) makes you a good person, 2) obeys the correct duties and rules, or 3) produce good consequences.

 

If we start with a clean slate, the beginning of ethics must certainly come from the realization that actions have consequences. The question of normative ethics, however, underlines what is to be considered the most important consequences. In virtue ethics it is the effect on the character of the person that does the action which matters most. In deontological ethics, what matters most is the effect on the integrity of the duties and rules that society recognizes. And, finally, in consequential ethics it is the immediate tangible impact on the well being of people that counts most.

 

However, there are some fundamental rational flaws in the second two positions, when one considers the possible conflict between what is intended and what actually happens. In consequential ethics we have a problem when the best of intentions has disastrous consequences. This not only places us in a quandry in regards to blame but also leads to considerable uncertainty in the ethics of all action. Shall we justify a crime by the possibility that people will actually benefit by it? In deontological ethics there are serious questions about the universality of duties and rules, for circumstances often arise when obedience to duties or rules causes harm. We often try to handle this rather common problem by talking about the spirit rather than the letter of the law. But this only underlines the flaws in deontological ethics rather than actually resolving the problem. I find myself supporting virtue ethics, although I would be interested if anyone sees flaws in this position that I have not considered.

 

 

What then is it that people are talking about when they use the words "absolute values"? Logically the word "absolute" suggests a comparison with the term "relative", which suggest that we consider something called moral relativism. In the ethical position called "moral relativism", moral or ethical propositions are not considered to reflect absolute or moral truths, but are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Is it possible that slavery was justified in a time of history where this was the only alternative to slaughter? Is it possible that polygamy is justified in a society where females greatly outnumber the males who can protect and/or provide for them? Is cannabalism justified when it is the only means of personal survival?

 

In contrast to this then, "absolute values" would seem to suggest that what is ethical is not relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. When looked at in this light this seems to go back to the first question of "meta-ethics" about whether values are independently real or invented by society. However, it seems to me that there is some confusion involved in this, because when some people talk about absolute values, they seem to mean that the difference between what is good and what is evil is decided by the will of someone whom they call God. Effectively then, the difference is determined by the arbitrary decision of this person God (if you believe He exists) or by their religion (if you do not). People, therefore, often reject this term "absolute values" because it seems to them that the difference between good and evil ought to be based on some absolute principle like avoiding harm to other people - or other living things. And yet in regards to the question of "meta-ethics" these positions are practically reversed, for what is arbitrarily decided by religion/God seems to have a less independent reality than that which is decided by some fundamental principle.

 

When the two fundamental questions of ethics are applied, the "absolute values" position refering to the will of God might be considered a created deontological ethics, while moral relativism also represents a created deontological ethics, and so the difference between these suggest that there is third important question of ethics regarding whether ethical determinations are neccessarily universal or not. Although in the case of discovered ethics (values are independently real) this seems to be exclusively of the universal variety.

 

However, there is a moderate postion between those of absolute values and moral relativism that is called pluralism. Pluralism suggests that there are some values which may be equally correct even though they are in conflict with each other and even though it is not possible to objectively say which is more important. The example which comes to my mind are the differences between east and west in regards to how honesty/truth and harmony/beauty are valued in these societies. It seems that in the west a greater importance is placed upon honesty and truth, while in the east a greater importance is attached to harmony and beauty. These values clash when the truth is ugly or destructive to the harmony of the family, society or nation. Pluralism differs from moral relativism because there are limits to what can be considered equally correct.

 

Consider this: Are there circumstances in which the rape, torture and murder of a child can be considered an acceptable recreational activity? If not then that is a universal - an absolute. Since the parameters of this can be varied continuously we can explore the limits of this absolute and even explore the key reasons why this is an absolute. But that means that this one absolute becomes the basis for an absolute system of morality - although NOT one that precludes pluralism. In other words, pluralism suggests that ethics may be a complex combination of both universal moral truths which are discovered and values which are decided arbitrarily by ones society, culture or religion.

 

I like to use the following imagery to look at the situation. When we consider the difference between what is good and evil in all the possibilities of life, what do we envision when good is represented by light and evil is represented by darkness. Do we see a single point of light surrounded by darkness in all directions? That often seems to be the image held by those who believe in "absolute values". Pluralism suggest a different image: one of light in all directions, but where there are points of darkness which one must avoid. Christians may naturally gravitate towards the first image thinking that Christ is that one point of light towards which everyone must go. However, since I believe in an infinite God and the infinite possibilites of life, it is second image of light in all directions which makes more sense to me.

Edited February 20, 2007 by mitchellmckain (see edit history)

[mitchellmckain 0]

I am rather surprise that no one has had anything to say on this topic since it seems to be one involving a great deal of controversy. People talk about right and wrong, good and evil. They uphold absolute values and condemn moral relativism. What do all of these things mean? How do you know what is right and wrong if you believe in any such thing?

[Arbitrary 0]

I would say that there isn't really a "right" or a "wrong" in this world. Rather, the world is just made up of the decisions you make and the consequences that they reap. Say you decided to murder someone--that's a choice on your part and others may not be able to stop you. However, you cannot stop others either when society as a whole binds together to give you a consequence (like jail or death).

Right and wrong is all relative. While what society defines as "right" may not be right in your mind, and neither will it be right in some other society's mind.

In taking a look at what is written about ethics, one finds in the broadest strokes these two major questions: one is the basic nature of values, and the second concerns the basis for determining these values. The first is the question of "meta-ethics" and there are two major positions: There are those who say that values are not independently real but are the creations of human beings. Then there are those who say that values are independently real and must be discovered rather than invented.

I believe that values are invented by humans, but it is quite obvious that there lacks definite proof for either side. I find it hard to say that values were predetermined--who is there to predetermine them? Obviously values need to be determined by some relatively intelligent creature, say a monkey or a dolphin; they can't be determined by bacteria. So who could've determined them for us humans to then later discover? I'd say that humans determined them in the first place--they were invented by different cultures.

And this whole idea of "discovering" values is a paradox. If a culture claims to have "discovered" a value, how do they know if it really is that predetermined value? How do other cultures know if this culture invented the value or discovered it?

The second question is the question of "normative ethics" and there are three major positions: There are the virtue ethicists who see values as being derived from ideals of human nature, often called virtues. Then there are the deontological ethicists who see values as being derived from duties and rules. Finally there are the consequential ethicists who believe that values are derived from the consequences of action. In other words, to put it simply we can ask if a moral or good action is that which 1) makes you a good person, 2) obeys the correct duties and rules, or 3) produce good consequences.

But the ideals of human nature can often turn into vices. Some ideals are unachievable--it is impossible to be absolutely perfect in everything. Take the example of communism--the ideal is great and all, but in practice, it just turns into an autocracy. And the ideals of a single human may be utterly different from the ideals of another human. What "makes you a good person", as mentioned in your earlier paragraph about values, is relative. Some people may consider a certain action as "good" while others may believe it to be horrible.
For #2--you have no guarantee that the rules and duties are good. For instance, let's say in your country, you have a "duty" to stop women from owning property. Is it a duty? Yes. But is it something that women consider good? No. Rules and duties are not necessarily "right" or "ethical"; they're just simple tidbits determined by the government and by tradition. Tradition does not equal correct.

Producing good consequences--that depends on whose viewpoint it's from. For some decisions, the consequences will be good for one group of people but bad for another. In that case, what are you supposed to do? Appease the masses? And oppress the minority? Or go for an inbetween decision and satisfy fully neither group? Or satisfy neither group at all so that the benefit balances are equal? Consequences are too relative and vague. Now if a particular decision only affected one person, then this rule can easily be applied. But as long as it applies to multiple people with multiple beliefs, it'll be hard to make it practical.

However, there is a moderate postion between those of absolute values and moral relativism that is called pluralism. Pluralism suggests that there are some values which may be equally correct even though they are in conflict with each other and even though it is not possible to objectively say which is more important. The example which comes to my mind are the differences between east and west in regards to how honesty/truth and harmony/beauty are valued in these societies. It seems that in the west a greater importance is placed upon honesty and truth, while in the east a greater importance is attached to harmony and beauty. These values clash when the truth is ugly or destructive to the harmony of the family, society or nation. Pluralism differs from moral relativism because there are limits to what can be considered equally correct.

It depends. Because while this "truth" may disrupt harmony for a time, by not telling it, the problem might escalate and the harmony might be totally shattered and unable to be retrieved given time. Therefore, in those cases, it may be better to simply tell the truth. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, so it's impossible to tell when the truth will have a better consequence than simple white lies.
Meanwhile, there's also a certain way that people can tell the truth. For instance, let's say there's a person in my school who gets horrible grades and mostly likely will not end up getting into a good college. I could tell him the truth by saying, "There's no way you can succeed in life with your utterly horrendous grades." By telling him that though, I might dash his hopes entirely and successfully turn him into a high school dropout. On the other hand, I could say, "If you do start studying harder and bringing up your grades, you could attend a prestigious college." The latter statement, while also stating the truth, is nicer and more encouraging. Therefore, telling the truth and reaping a "good" consequence may depend on your tone of voice and the encouragement you hold behind your words.

Consider this: Are there circumstances in which the rape, torture and murder of a child can be considered an acceptable recreational activity?

The general consensus to this is obvious: No. Buuuuut (yes, that word again), what if this child had murdered, raped, and tortured another child? Is it then still not justified? Now I don't condone revenge, but in some societies (say the age-old Hammurabi's Code), it's quite justifiable. In those societies, the murder of a child murderer would be executed without a second thought.

On a personal level, I agree with pluralism. There are no absolutes in life. Not even with the above statement.
Edited March 12, 2007 by Arbitrary (see edit history)

[Rid 0]

I would say that there isn't really a "right" or a "wrong" in this world. Rather, the world is just made up of the decisions you make and the consequences that they reap. Say you decided to murder someone--that's a choice on your part and others may not be able to stop you. However, you cannot stop others either when society as a whole binds together to give you a consequence (like jail or death).

 

Right and wrong is all relative. While what society defines as "right" may not be right in your mind, and neither will it be right in some other society's mind.

I would have to disagree with this statement. I would agree that "right and wrong" may appear to be relative, based mainly upon an individual's point of view, but this is like saying that "normal" is relative. The definition of normal is: conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm; not abnormal; "serve wine at normal room temperature"; "normal diplomatic relations"; "normal working hours"; "normal word order"; "normal curiosity"; "the normal course of events". While my daily actions may be normal in relation to myself, they may not be normal in relation to society, and therefore are not normal. The same goes for right and wrong. While what is right to myself may not be right to society, and therefore is not right.

 

One of the major things that societies world wide have in common is the dislike for crime, such as murder and theft. Certain societies see different things as crimes, but true crime, like theft and murder, seem to be disliked near world wide, and therefore should naturally be considered evil, as our societies do. Something such as the rape of a woman in most societies today is also considered evil, but it was not always so in many places, and in some areas of the world it still is not considered so. So by your logic, since this act does not seem evil to certain societies, it is not evil in that area. A sort of "beauty in the eyes of the beholder" phenomenon. However, just because a small society sees it as normal, does that make it right for them to do it? How do those women feel about it, and do the men of that society truly have a right to force themselves upon a woman? In our society it is deemed morally wrong, again invoking your logic that good and evil are relative. The reason that I would say, however, that your logic is incorrect is by simple fact that societies that view such acts as evil are also very advanced in culture and technology. It would seem that the cultures that unite behind near absolute, slightly relative values of good and evil, the ones where equal rights are extended to all, no matter the race, religion, gender, or age, are the cultures that expand and grow, becoming powerful and desired. Would it not make sense then, that these cultures, now nations, are proof that there is right and wrong?

[yuhuu 0]

to put it simply we can ask if a moral or good action is that which 1) makes you a good person, 2) obeys the correct duties and rules, or 3) produce good consequences.

I would go for the third, because..the first reason is too subjective, ideals could difer from ages to ages and from cultures to cultures. What could be considered as a good action in a certain society, could be considered bad in another..It is too relative..and going forward..it is an excuse to put every action in perspective,,Every..
The second is too simple and very unmerciful...In exageration will produce death penalties...In contrast with the third, which explains a way of knowing the good action through the sacrifice of a voluntary person....

[mitchellmckain 0]

On a personal level, I agree with pluralism. There are no absolutes in life. Not even with the above statement.

But pluralism admits that there are absolutes, it just recognizes that some things are relative or arbitrary. It is moral relativism that makes the extreme claim that there are no absolutes at all.

Despite your response, I would judge that you agree that there are no circumstances in which the rape, torture and murder of a child can be considered an acceptable recreational activity. The next question therefore is why?

[iGuest 3]

"The general consensus to this is obvious: No. Buuuuut (yes, that word again), what if this child had murdered, raped, and tortured another child? Is it then still not justified?"

This claim is completely contradictory.

The main assumption of the primary claim was that the child was innocent. By saying that the child should be punished (by death posssibly in some cultures) is the same as saying that the child should not have murdered, raped, and tortured another child. Which then means that murdering, raping and torturing another child, who was innocent, is wrong. You prove the point that it is not morally justifiable in any culture, even the age-old Hammurabi's Code, to commit murder, rape and torture of another child.

The discussion of punishment for ones actions is something of different matter. Whether capital punishment should be implied, etc. I won't go so far off topic as that though.

Why is it so difficult to believe that there is a God that has created these absolute morals though? It is logical to assume that since we all have the exact same reasoning (that in no culture is it alright to murder, rape and torture an innocent child) that there was something before us to implant this into our brains when we were created. This makes sense.

(If there is a culture that is out in the world that states that the murder, torture and rape of an innocent child is alright, please let me know because this would disprove my whole point of the existence of a God.)

 

 

-reply by cequalsme

[TheFury 0]

I am rather surprise that no one has had anything to say on this topic since it seems to be one involving a great deal of controversy.

 

People talk about right and wrong, good and evil. They uphold absolute values and condemn moral relativism. What do all of these things mean? How do you know what is right and wrong if you believe in any such thing?

This type of ethical discussion is outside my areas of study, which are mostly applied ethics in the areas of political and environmental sciences, if i had the time i would read up on things and give you a broader response, however i see your dilemma not so much as an ethical one but more of a philosophical one.

 

Kant and Hobbs both have absolutes within their respective ethical frameworks and would be a great place to start any study into this (cant think of anyone who does not off the top of my head, maybe some hard core utilitarian), also i found this in my Uni library, Through the Moral Maze: Searching for Absolute Values in a Pluralistic World by Robert Kane this might also be helpful and a good read into this entire arguument.