Ethical relativism is the position that there are no moral absolutes, no moral right and wrongs. Instead, right and wrong are based on social norms. Some have heard of the term situational ethics which is a category of ethical relativism. At any rate, ethical relativism would mean that our morals have evolved, that they have changed over time, and that they are not absolute.

One advantage of ethical relativism is that it allows for a wide variety of cultures and practices. It also allows people to adapt ethically as the culture, knowledge, and technology change in society. This is good and a valid form of relativism.

The disadvantage of ethical relativism is that truth, right and wrong, and justice are all relative. Just because the group of people thinks that something is right does not make so. Slavery is a good example of this. Two hundred years ago in America, slavery was the norm and morally acceptable. Now it is not.

Relativism also does not allow for the existence of an absolute set of ethics. Logically, if there are not absolute ethics, then there can be no Divine Absolute Ethics Giver. Requiring an absolute set ethics implies an Absolute Ethics Giver which can easily be extrapolated as being God. This would be opposed to ethical relativism. Therefore, ethical relativism would not support the idea of an absolute God and it would exclude religious systems based upon absolute morals; that is, it would be absolute in its condemnation of absolute ethics. In this, relativism would be inconsistent since it would deny beliefs of absolute values.

Furthermore, if ethics have changed overtime there is the problem of self contradiction within the relativistic perspective. 200 years ago slavery was socially acceptable and correct. Now it is not. There has been a change in social ethics in America regarding this issue. The problem is that if slavery becomes acceptable again in the next 200 years, who is to say if it is right or wrong? We would have a contradictory set of right and wrong regarding the same issue. To this I ask the question, does truth contradict itself?

Within ethical relativism, right and wrong are not absolute and must be determined in society by a combination of observation, logic, social preferences and patterns, experience, emotions, and "rules" that seem to bring the most benefit. Of course, it goes without saying that a society involved in constant moral conflict would not be able to survive for very long. Morality is the glue that holds a society together. There must be a consensus of right and wrong for a society to function well. Ethical relativism undermines that glue.

It seems to be universal among cultures that it is wrong to murder, to steal, and to lie. We see that when individuals practice these counterproductive ethics, they are soon in prison and/or punished. Since ethics are conceptual in nature and there are some ethics that seem to transcend all cultures (be true for all societies) I conclude that there is a transcendent God who has authored these ethics -- but that is another discussion.

I do not believe that the best ethical patterns discovered by which societies operate (honesty, fidelity, truth, no theft, no murder, etc.) are the product of our biological makeup or trial and error. As a Christian, I see them as a reflection of God’s very character. They are a discovery of the rules God has established by which people best interact with people because He knows how He has designed them. The 10 commandments are a perfect example of moral absolutes and have yet to be improved upon. They are transcendent; that is, they transcend social norms and are always true.

I was once challenged to prove that there were moral absolutes. I took up the challenge with the following argument. I asked the gentleman whether or not there were logical absolutes. For example, I asked if it was a logical absolute that something could exist and also not exist at the same time. He said, no that it was not possible. Another example is that something cannot bring itself into existence. To this he agreed that there were indeed logical absolutes. I then asked him to explain how logical absolutes can exist if there is no God. I questioned him further by asking him to tell me how in a purely physical universe logical absolutes, which are by nature conceptual, can exist. I said, they cannot be measured, put in the test tube, weighed, nor captured; yet, they exist. So, I asked him to please tell me how these conceptual absolute truths can exist in a purely physical universe...without a God. He could not answer me. I then went on to say that these conceptual absolutes logically must exist in the mind of an absolute God because they cannot merely reside in the properties of matter in a purely naturalistic universe. And since the logical absolutes are true everywhere all the time and they are conceptual, it would seem logical that they exist within a transcendent, omnipresent, being. If there is an absolute God with an absolute mind then he is the standard of all things – as well as morals. Therefore, there would be moral absolutes. To this argument the gentleman chuckled, said he had never heard it before, and conceded that it may be possible for moral absolutes to exist.

Of course, as a Christian, as one who believes in the authority and inspiration of the Bible, I consider moral absolutes to be very real because they come from God and not because they somehow reside in a naturalistic universe.

Ethics are important in society, in the home, and in all interactions. Would you believe me if I started lying to you in this paper? No. You expect me to be fair, honest, logical, and forthright. Can I be that if I believe all ethics are relative? Heck, if I did, I could try and deceive you into getting me to believe what I want you to.

Moral Absolutism

Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. "Absolutism" is often philosophically contrasted with moral relativism, which is a belief that moral truths are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and to situational ethics, which holds that the morality of an act depends on the context of the act.

The question of whether ethical relativism or ethical absolutism is right has been the subject of much debate, and perhaps may never be answered for certain. It is certain, however, that at the present time, ethical relativism is in general accepted as the standard. Although I realize that given the fact that the best of philosophers have failed to give solid arguments for either ethical relativism or ethical absolutism will most likely be unable as well, however that is not my goal. Rather my purpose is simply to make us question the ethical relativism to which we have become so accustomed, and to demonstrate some reasons why ethical absolutism may be correct.

We all know that people, in general, treat ethics as being subjective. Does that, however, make that right, just, and ethical? To put it simply, the answer is: no. This is obvious given the common example, "if all the other kids were jumping off a cliff, would you do it too." The masses are not always right. So now the thought in all your minds is "come on - go ahead! Prove us wrong." I'm not trying to prove anything, however I will hopefully give you enough information to make you question what is right, and if I do, then I've accomplished my goals.

Let's begin with the basics. "What are absolute ethics?" Ethical Absolutism, is undeviating moral discipline. Nothing is relative; a crime is a crime, regardless of circumstances. For a quick demonstration of ethical relativism let us use the example of murder. Is it ok to kill someone without reason? Obviously both ethical standpoints would say no. Now lets assume that the murderer is a doctor who could kill one patient to save another. In this case both ethical groups still say no. Once we keep with this situation and move to the more extreme case of killing one to save a million people, or perhaps all of humanity. This is when the ethical relativist will feel its ok to kill, however, for the ethical absolutist this is still wrong.

Immanuel Kant best expressed this specific instance in his ethical absolute that "a person must never be only a means and must be an end in himself." Kant tried to set ethical laws that would make it easy to be absolutist, and his ethical theory is called the Categorical Imperative. According to the categorical imperative a person must imagine a proposed action becoming a universal ethical law. If this would be a good thing, then the action is ethical. Although this may be quite effective for each individual person, the problem is that it does not actually cause ethical universality.

For instance, if I plan to steal bread to feed my starving family I might see this as being ethical. However, would not an absolutist ethical theory brand all stealing as being wrong? You might argue that this is a different form of stealing, and that there is an absolute for situations like this, however this makes way for an infinite number of situations, and really you're looking at relativistic ethics once more. The other problem with the categorical imperative is that there can be contradictions if one person believes something would make a good universal and someone else does not. An absolute ethical theory cannot have contradictions.

Before we move on to the reasons for ethical absolutism lets take a look at some of the problems with ethical relativism. Some are quite obvious, others less so. According to relativist ethics anything that a group or a culture decides is morally right is right for them. Therefore, slavery, or torture, or any other wrongs are ok so long as one group believes it to be right. Because the Germans believed that the persecution of the Jews was right, Hitler was a moral man. Relativist ethics give us no grounds from which to compare moralities and to set standards.

Similarly, if we make moral relativism depend on a group, how is a group defined? Are these groups a nation, a race, a city, a family, a gang, or what? Considering that a group must have the same set of ethics, most likely we'd have to define a group as an individual, and this creates moral anarchy. Everyone is free to do whatever they want, and under the standards of moral relativism, no one can object on moral grounds to anyone else's actions.

Now let's take a look at the effects of moral relativism in a few subject areas. The topic has a few interesting effects on science. The aforementioned doctor problem brings another issue to light. According to absolutist ethics a doctor can never kill a patient regardless of how many others he may save, however with relativistic ethics there is a point where the doctor can kill the patient to save others. But how is this point determined? Could you say right now a specific number of lives that would have to be saved before you would kill a patient? Would it make a different that the patient that would be killed is and the identity of the patients to be solved? This issue then becomes incredibly confusing, and even one person may decide differently on the exact same problem but on different days.

Another science issue that pertains to ethical relativity is the one that some of us may encounter. We have all heard about professors who steal their students' work and publish it as their own. According to absolutist ethics this is obviously wrong: it is the act of stealing. However, by taking a subjectivist view, they can try to justify their action. Professors use excuses such as "well, my professor did it to me" and bend their ethics to fit their desires.

In history, ethics may not seem to play a big role, but actually can be quite important. As ethics play a big role in our life today, so too did it in the past. A historian must analyze the past under the correct ethical context to get a proper understanding. We must also consider that some subjective historians may say that the holocaust was a good thing, as some have, whereas others may disagree. Moral absolutism on the other hand gives historians a firm basis from which to compare conclusions.

One commonly used defense of moral relativism talks of not hurting a friend's feelings. For example, if a friend of mine was to say "how do I look in this dress" or "what do you think of my story," the ethical relativists argue that its ok to do a little 'white lie' to make them feel good. While it may accomplish this may work, the side effects are much worse than what it was mean to accomplish. Consider the results of this on that person's mind. If that person takes your comments at face value and thinks they look beautiful in their dress, then their concept of beauty has just been distorted. If they believe that the story is quality writing then their appreciation of literature has been destroyed. These so called white lies are actually an assault on a person's mind.

Another benefit of absolute ethics is that they allow actions be compared on an even ethical basis. It allows us to judge the actions of others, and to actually say to someone like Hitler, "you were wrong." Absolute ethics allow courts of law to exist, and order to be maintained. Absolutist ethics come to doctors in the form of the Hippocratic Oath, where they were pledge to "do no harm." Would you select a doctor who did not abide by this?

One last, but important reason why we're not using absolutist ethics is because of the way we're raised. It's not important that we haven't been raised to use absolutist ethics, but it is key that we've been raised to see relativist ethics as being right. I'm sure almost all of us have heard from a parent "you know I'll love you no matter what you do." Think about what that entails. That statement is in and of itself the death of absolutist ethics, especially for a young child who believes everything his parents say. This is saying "nothing is absolute", "we'll forgive everything", and "you make up your mind about what is right." Relativistic ethics are now permanently embedded in the child's mind.