“Absolute” is the first of several rhetorical tricks we will explore to divert attention from pragmatic concrete meanings to highly publicized metaphysical abstractions. This is a powerful eternal step because you can let abstractions say what you want, while concrete meanings are uncomfortably stubborn in the sense of what they want to mean. Nihilism, which usually only reverses eternal tricks, points out that metaphysical absolutes do not exist, so the plate is empty – while hiding an uncomfortable real meaning under its napkin. 5. While there may be differences between the different cultures on this planet, that doesn`t mean there aren`t similarities or basic ethical principles that might be common to all. Take, for example, the rather basic principle that there is a right to life and that, therefore, killing is wrong. Now, there may be societies that allow the murder of an unfaithful spouse or unwanted children at birth. Despite the differences, there may be a common principle that wrongful murder is wrong. Second, societies disagree on what constitutes the justification for intentionally ending a life, but not on the ground rule that killing is orally false. If you can, there are pragmatic methods to increase your knowledge, insight, power, and security, although they are not 100% reliable. That is what the whole attitude recommends.

It provides tools to help you understand and trust meanings that are somewhat nebulous but structured to be appropriate most of the time. 4. The theory of normative ethical relativism contradicts our ordinary experiences and our conception of morality. Even people who claim to believe that the theory of normative ethical relativism is correct make moral judgments about people`s practices in other cultures. For example, they condemn female infanticide and female genital mutilation and a number of other practices, even practices dating back centuries. It seems pretty obvious that there are certain acts that ordinary people simply consider morally reprehensible, no matter who commits them. 4. The inability of most people to think that there might be a third alternative to moral absolutism (associated with religion) and cultural relativism. Consider the question: Are all moral duties binding on everyone at all times, or are moral duties tied to culture? Few people can imagine a third alternative to these two options.

Considering absolutism untenable, many simply accept the relativistic position. Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism. Universalism simply asserts that what is good or bad is independent of habit or opinion (as opposed to moral relativism),[1] but not necessarily that what is good or bad is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism). Moral universalism is compatible with moral absolutism, but also with positions such as consequentialism. Louis Pojman gives the following definitions to distinguish the two positions of moral absolutism and universalism:[2] Rationalism as an eternal ideology also crucially depends on the absolute of truths. Its entire frame collapses unless everything is absolutely true or absolutely false. The first part of In the Cells of Eggplant explains this in detail; see in particular the chapter “The Truth”. Marc D.

Hauser, a Harvard biologist, argues in Moral Minds (HarperCollins 2006) that humans are born with a moral grammar wired into their neural circuits by evolution. This system in the brain produces instant moral judgments. This was necessary in part because life-threatening situations often require quick decisions to be made. In such difficulties, there is no time to access consciousness. Most people do not seem to be aware of this profound moral processing because the left hemisphere of the brain has been adept at producing interpretations of events and information and doing so quickly, creating what can be accepted as a rationalization of the decision or the impulse and response that are rapidly produced by the brain. without conscious attention being possible at all. For these philosophers, ethics is an examination of right and wrong through a critical examination of the reasons behind practices and beliefs. As a theory used to justify moral practices and beliefs, ethical relativism does not recognize that some societies have better reasons to have their opinions than others. Eternalists sometimes contrast absolute truth or morality with “relativism.” This term has no clear definition and is used to refer to several very different points of view. It is mainly pejorative: few serious thinkers currently defend the broad concepts of “relative truth” or “moral relativism”. 3 Normative ethical relativism is a theory that asserts that there are no universal moral principles. The theory of normative ethical relativism asserts that the moral correctness and falsehood of actions vary from society to society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards that bind all people at all times.

The theory claims that any reflection on the basic principles of morality (ethics) is always relative. Each culture establishes the fundamental values and principles that serve as the basis for morality. The theory claims that this is the case now, has always been the case and always will be. The theory claims not only that different cultures have different points of view, but that it is impossible that there will ever be a single set of ethical principles for the whole world, because there are no universal principles that could apply to all the peoples of the earth. The theory is that all this thinking about ethical principles is just a reflection of the power holders of a particular culture. Every culture establishes and will always establish its own ethical principles. Any attempt by members of one culture to apply its principles to other peoples of other cultures is only a political gesture and an assertion of power. Nihilism agrees: nothing in our everyday world is absolute, so there is no meaning.

You should be very, very sad. Think of Socrates. He could not accept the mythopoetic thought of his time as the basis of morality, nor the relativism of Thrasymachus and other sophists who taught and proclaimed that power does good and chance makes power. The Sophists believed that every society makes its own rules and that there are no universal rules, no gods ruling over everything and making rules. For example, in his essay “On an Alleged Right to Lie for Altruistic Motives,” Kant argues that it is wrong to lie to oneself to save an innocent person from a murderer. He writes: “Be honest in all considerations. is a sacred and absolutely imposing decree of reason, which is not limited by any opportunism.” Nor should ethics be equated with religion. Most religions, of course, advocate high ethical standards. But if ethics were limited to religion, then ethics would only apply to religious people.

But ethics applies to the behavior of the atheist as well as to that of the religious believer. Religion can set high ethical standards and provide intense motivations for ethical behavior. However, ethics cannot be limited to religion, nor can it be the same as religion. Absolute morality is appropriate for people who do not yet have the cognitive sophistication to deal with moral complexity. These include children and some adults, not many. They may find a more precise ethic confusing and, despite good intentions, unable to use it. Or they take a more complex system simply than “everything is grey, nothing is really bad, so I can do whatever I want as long as I can get away with it”. Simplistic and absolute morality is sometimes inaccurate, but much better than unrestricted self-interest.

Eternalism equates relativism and subjectivism in general with nihilism. This is not formally correct, but in practice it is quite correct. “Meanings” that are chosen arbitrarily or subjectively held without outside support are difficult to maintain. Truth and ethics are neither subjective nor absolute. A more sophisticated ethic recognizes that there are no moral absolutes and that right and wrong depend on many factors, including intentions and circumstances, as well as the action itself; But that doesn`t make ethics a matter of individual choice or cultural consensus. Secondly, a shorter example – it would be horrible – “immoral” – to knowingly kill an innocent man, right? But there are anthropological accounts of the incredibly effective deterrence achieved by tribes that understood that if a member of tribe A killed a member of tribe B, a member of tribe A—all members except the murderer—would be killed by tribe B.