"Ethical Absolutism"
Many people today are looking for absolutes. They are attracted to people, positions, and even ethics that tell them exactly what to think or do. Most often these people really want to absolutize their own position and so they try to find someone "out there" who is saying what they believe "in their heart or mind." They have no tolerance for other points of view, which may be why they seek to find someone who tells them what they believe in the first place. Ultimately they might be much happier if they were the only person in the universe, or if everyone in the universe believed exactly like them.
The trouble with this position is not only its intolerance, but its arrogance. It leads to politicians who do not listen to differing points of view, who because he/she thinks they are right meets diversity with even more hunkered down resolve to be right. Yes, the problem with this kind of person is that they think they are God.
It is human and accurate to take up a position for one's own point of view, but to be open to other people taking other positions on any issue. So this argument is supportive of taking a position on one's ethical point of view, but respecting and listening to other points of view.
In the book Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory Lawrence Hinman relates this analogy to the question of ethical absolutism: "Bernard Gert, a philosopher who teaches at Dartmouth asks his students, 'Who is the best hitter in major league bseball today?' Invariably, he gets several different answers. As the discussion proceeds, it becomes evident that there are different standards for judging who the 'best hitter' is. Some point to the number of hits per year, others to to the number of runs batted in, and some even point to the number of home runs a year. This is a perfect example of pluralism. There are several different standards, each of which is reasonable, none of which is exhaustive. Notice, though, that pluralism does not mean that 'anything goes.' There are many different standards and not every standard is legitimiate. If someone tried to define 'best hitter' as 'batter most often hit by a pitched ball' we would immediately reject it. Pluralism does not mean anything goes."
Hinman (and Gert's) analogy hits close to home for me, since I grew up arguing with my brothers over whether Mays, Mantle, or Aaron was the best hitter in baseball. I did not win my argument for Henry Aaron very often, but I still believed in my position. So it is with my position that some kind of relational ethic which takes God and other people seriously is the best position. I would also argue for a teleological approach which asks "what would be the end result of any ethical action?" and that asks for the measure being not just me, but for all humankind. I would also include a "situational" component to the extent that any act must be related to the particular choices of the person at that point in time. But I clearly have room in my ethical field to respectfully accept other points of view.
Would I say there are no ethical absolutes? I think so (that doesn't sound very absolute does it?)! The only absolute for me is God and since we spend our lifetime trying to ascertain what God would have us do at any moment, we human beings are left to approximations of the absolute. But certainly some far-out positions have no shot. After all, no one back in the sixties would ever argue for Ron Hunt, who was hit by pitches 50 times in 1971, but who hit .279 with 5 homers and 38 RBI's, was the best hitter in baseball that year.
Comments