(July 20, 2012 at 1:53 pm)liam Wrote: So I've been doing a lot of philosophy writing lately after another sojourn through some books and I'd just like to share this with you.
A lot of moral theories are considered to be either 'absolutist' or 'non-absolutist', yet in reality they are all truly absolute, just to different levels. For example, classical utilitarianism (Bentham's) claims to be free from absolutes yet it is fundamentally absolutist in that it makes the claim that the individual must do what produces most pleasure. Thus it would say that 'one must never perform an action which leads to the greatest suffering', this, my friends, is a moral absolute. I challenge you to find one moral theory (amoralism does not count because it is fundamentally not a moral system) which has no absolutes, can you do this with me? Much appreciated
I think your personal views might color what you consider to be absolute or not more than you'd think - absolute here meaning without any limitations or restrictions. Consider following points when judging the absolutism of a moral theory.
1. Every moral theory has parts that are absolute (apply in any given situation) and others that are not. So taken as a whole, none of them can ever be considered an absolute.
2. Moral theories don't come about in a vacuum. If you try to determine if a moral theory is fundamentally absolutist, you'd have to consider the fundamental behind it. For example, utilitarianism relies on the fundamental that "maximum pleasure" is the prescribed goal of every individual. That premise itself forms the condition where if it is not true, the whole moral theory is rendered false and inapplicable - thus non-absolute.
3. Every moral theory is designed to be suitable for human psychology (obviously, some better than others). It takes into account the peculiarities of human condition and our understanding of the concepts such as suffering or pleasure. Therefore, human psychology itself forms one of the conditions for its applicability, thus rendering it non-absolute.
Thus, no moral theory can actually be absolute because they always rest on premises that are not absolutely true (even if they are claimed to be). What you are trying to show here is that even when the followers of a moral theory claim that it is morally non-absolutist, they say that their theory is not absolute, but treat the underlying premises as if they were. Well, that's a very tough criteria to judge anything by, because for every person you can find who'd say "the individual must do what produces greatest pleasure irrespective of the situation or persons involved", another might say "that applies only to humans with normal psyche and such an obligation would not rest on someone who cannot differentiate between pain and suffering".
