#universal ethics

Absolutism in philosophy is the belief that certain truths, values, principles, or laws are universally valid and unchanging, regardless of individual perspectives, cultural differences, or situational contexts. Absolutists maintain that there are objective standards that apply to all people at all times. It stands in contrast to relativism and subjectivism, which argue that truth or morality is contingent on individual or cultural factors.

Key Aspects of Absolutism:

1. Epistemological Absolutism

Objective Truth: Absolutism in epistemology holds that there are absolute truths that exist independently of human knowledge or perception. These truths are universally valid, and human reason or inquiry can discover them.

Certainty in Knowledge: Epistemological absolutists believe that it is possible to attain certain and objective knowledge about the world. This contrasts with epistemological relativism, where truth is seen as relative to individual or cultural perspectives.

2. Moral Absolutism

Universal Moral Standards: Moral absolutism asserts that there are objective and unchanging moral principles that apply to all individuals, regardless of their situation or culture. For example, an absolutist might claim that lying is always wrong, no matter the circumstances.

Moral Objectivity: According to this view, morality is not based on personal feelings or societal norms but on universal ethical rules. Moral principles are seen as inherent to the nature of reality or human beings.

Divine Command and Natural Law: Some versions of moral absolutism are grounded in religious or metaphysical beliefs, such as the idea that moral laws are dictated by a divine being (divine command theory) or arise from the natural order of the universe (natural law theory).

3. Metaphysical Absolutism

Objective Reality: Metaphysical absolutism posits that there is a single, objective reality that exists independently of human perception. The world and its laws exist in a fixed state, regardless of how individuals or cultures perceive or interpret them.

Unchanging Nature of Reality: This view denies the idea that reality is constructed by human minds or is relative to different perspectives. Reality is what it is, and human beings can understand it through reason and inquiry.

4. Ethical and Legal Absolutism

Objective Moral Duties: Ethical absolutism holds that certain actions are morally right or wrong regardless of circumstances or consequences. For example, killing an innocent person is always wrong, no matter the situation.

Universal Laws: In legal or political absolutism, there is the belief that some laws or principles of justice should be universally applied, regardless of cultural differences. These are seen as immutable standards that transcend human invention.

5. Aesthetic Absolutism

Objective Standards of Beauty: In aesthetics, absolutism holds that beauty is not merely in the eye of the beholder but has objective standards. Certain works of art, forms, or expressions are considered universally beautiful or valuable.

Timeless Art: Absolutists in aesthetics may argue that some artistic creations or forms of expression have lasting and objective value, transcending time and culture.

Absolutism vs. Relativism:

Absolutism maintains that truth, morality, and reality are objective, universal, and unchanging.

Relativism holds that truth, morality, and knowledge are context-dependent and vary based on individual, societal, or cultural factors.

Criticism of Absolutism:

Cultural Differences: Critics argue that absolutism overlooks the diversity of human cultures and experiences. What may seem like a universal truth in one context may not apply in another. This criticism is especially strong in moral absolutism, where cultural relativists argue that morality is context-dependent.

Moral Dilemmas: Absolutism can struggle to address complex moral dilemmas where strict adherence to a universal principle might lead to negative outcomes. For instance, if lying is always wrong, is it wrong to lie to save a life?

Inflexibility: Absolutism is often criticized for being rigid and dogmatic, leaving little room for adaptation to new knowledge or changing circumstances. This can make it difficult to apply in diverse, modern societies.

As we said in the previous post, the globalization of business has raised new challenges for business but not only. It also raises issues and concerns for ethics. As we have seen in the previous section, countries have different cultures and different standards but are there a common, universal vision of what is ethics? 

In this video, Joseph R. DesJardins raises some interesting questions: What does it matter that different cultures have different expectations and standards? Do we simply accept the status quo which claims that “in Rome, do as the Romans do”? Or are there standards that are more objective, more universal? Is ethics dependent upon culture or is it something that is more rational and independent of culture? 

He also claimed that “If we assume that every culture has its standards and that standards are valid within each culture, there is a problem. This results in asking ourselves: who is going to win this conflict?” 

He says that to avoid this issue, there would be a rational process that will fit all situations. Not a rational answer, a perfectly defined answer but a process that can be manipulated to fit each situation. 

Actually, this video is really interesting and if the summary that we provide is not enough for you, you can also have a look at it.

References: 

i really appreciate the value of social justice work, in so far as it aims to make other people more aware of the subtext and consequences of their actions.

for example, doing an anti-oppressive critique of a movie seems to me like it can be useful in that it allows readers to confront certain issues in a cultural medium that they might otherwise ignore and think about how those issues impact daily life.

what i really don’t appreciate, however, is when social justice work becomes about making prescriptions for how other people must live their lives in order to approach the threshold of decent, anti-oppressive personhood, a state of grace that no one ever actually attains because of original sin- i mean ingrained prejudices that result from being born in an oppressive society.

for example, telling people DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE, really gets to me. talking to people who have agency and the ability to discern reasons and make choices as if there is a predetermined right course of action for everyone confronted with any given scenario is not only an insult to the agency and decision-making capacity of the person who has to make the choice, it is woefully simplistic. i don’t understand how anyone can presume to know what is best for another person, or one can make a neo-kantian (or even god-like) assumption that they are themselves somehow in possession of knowledge of what action is universally good.