Ethical Handicaps
I was perusing a discussion on the national homeschool debate forums when I ran into this tidbit from a poster.
"The search for absolutes is a handicap in ethical reasoning." He went on to clarify, "I did not say there are no absolutes; I said there are little to no absolutes in ethics. That's a difference."
I've already posted about the need for absolute truth, but I think it's worth discussing the need for absolute truth in ethics. I could care less whether the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa. How we live, interact with others, and choose right and wrong has a far more pertinent impact on life in general.
There must be an absolute, without it we cannot have progress or work toward any goal, especially in ethics. Without an absolute standard, we cannot say that the world is becoming better, worse, more depraved, or more enlightened. We don't know whether any action is good, bad, or simply neutral. We don't know anything about the realm of ethics. In short, there can be no ethics without absolutes.
Practical experience also tells us that there must be some kind of absolute in ethics. As C.S. Lewis noted in Mere Christianity, "though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences are not really very great - not nearly so great as most people imagine - and you can recognize the same law running throughout them all: whereas mere conventions, like the rule of the road or the kind of clothes people wear, may differ to any extent. ... [Furthermore] If no set moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality."
What we see in the world, as summed up in Lewis's quote, is that there has never been a totally "opposite" ethical system. There has never been a society that valued falsehood, cowardice, cheating, or dishonor. We also can plainly see that we are able to evaluate different systems by some standard. That standard must be an objective absolute standard or else there is absolutely no basis for differentiating between systems of ethics.
In contrast to the poster's belief that the "search for absolutes is a handicap in ethical reasoning," in reality there can be no ethics without absolutes.
"The search for absolutes is a handicap in ethical reasoning." He went on to clarify, "I did not say there are no absolutes; I said there are little to no absolutes in ethics. That's a difference."
I've already posted about the need for absolute truth, but I think it's worth discussing the need for absolute truth in ethics. I could care less whether the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa. How we live, interact with others, and choose right and wrong has a far more pertinent impact on life in general.
There must be an absolute, without it we cannot have progress or work toward any goal, especially in ethics. Without an absolute standard, we cannot say that the world is becoming better, worse, more depraved, or more enlightened. We don't know whether any action is good, bad, or simply neutral. We don't know anything about the realm of ethics. In short, there can be no ethics without absolutes.
Practical experience also tells us that there must be some kind of absolute in ethics. As C.S. Lewis noted in Mere Christianity, "though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences are not really very great - not nearly so great as most people imagine - and you can recognize the same law running throughout them all: whereas mere conventions, like the rule of the road or the kind of clothes people wear, may differ to any extent. ... [Furthermore] If no set moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality."
What we see in the world, as summed up in Lewis's quote, is that there has never been a totally "opposite" ethical system. There has never been a society that valued falsehood, cowardice, cheating, or dishonor. We also can plainly see that we are able to evaluate different systems by some standard. That standard must be an objective absolute standard or else there is absolutely no basis for differentiating between systems of ethics.
In contrast to the poster's belief that the "search for absolutes is a handicap in ethical reasoning," in reality there can be no ethics without absolutes.
posted by Matt Pitchford at 09:07
3 Comments:
Let's compact the sentence: "The search for absolutes is a handicap in... reasoning."
No absolutes, no reason. But that's what kills the Rationalist: Absolutes, at the end of the day, at the end of all the causality-chains, have to be taken on faith. You have to just stop and say "Ok, this is the standard." You cannot reason without absolutes, but someone who believes in Reason alone cannot accept that there are absolutes above and beyond Reason.
1. "It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all." ~G.K. Chesterton
It's a bit red herringish off what you said, but to be "completely rational" involves faith too.
2. You must admit that the poster sets himself up to cover all the bases. He agrees there are some absolutes, just not in ethics. Basically, Pops, he thinks he can have your standard "and eat it too."
-Matt
Psh, we agree, you just don't know it. :-D
Post a Comment
<< Home