As promised, we return now to the Eighth Commandment: "Thou shalt not steal." And again, some cases clearly and unequivocally fall under this commandment: e.g., car-jacking, burglary, embezzlement. Unfortunately, meaning of the verb "to steal" is not entirely clear and unambiguous. (I will set aside the huge problem of the translation of the original ancient Hebrew word. See my "Through a Glass Darkly"). Consider two interpretations of "stealing" from opposite poles of political philosophy.
Which of these applications fall under the prohibition against stealing? The Marxist's? The Libertarian's? Both? Neither? "It depends" - it depends on what one means by "stealing." In other words, "it's relative."
Relativism of meaning is conspicuous in the Roman Catholic faith, wherein there are many absolute prohibitions which, while easy enough to articulate, can appear to be morally repugnant when applied to extreme particular circumstances.
Consider the absolute prohibition against divorce: "What God hath joined, let no man put asunder." But what if an abusive and deranged husband is a threat to the life of the wife and children? Permanent separation is one solution. But this will deprive the wife of the support and the children of a stable home that may result from a new marriage. Too bad: no divorce allowed. So why not decide, instead, that a valid marriage never happened in the first place. This may require a meticulous review and examination of the circumstances of the putative "marriage," along with an extension of the list of conditions that would invalidate the marriage. Voila! Annulment - the non-divorce divorce. Accomplished through a re-definition of "valid marriage."
Next: the absolute prohibition against abortion. But what to do with ectopic pregnancies - the implantation of the fertilized egg (conceptus) in the woman's fallopian tube. The fetus will not survive, and the woman's life is seriously threatened. Abortion? Absolutely not! It's "murder!" "The doctrine of double-effect to the rescue!" It is "licit" to remove the ectopic fetus in order to save the life of the woman. But this is not abortion, since the primary intent is to preserve the life of the mother. "Terminating" the life of the fetus is not the intention of the operation, it was a regrettable, albeit inevitable, side-effect. A non-abortion abortion.
In short, if an absolute commandment proves, in its applications, to be intolerable, don't abandon the commandment, just redefine its component terms so as to exclude the problematic applications. Thus it turns out that some absolute commandments are more absolute than others.
Finally, moral absolutism rests upon an assumption of perfect semantic clarity: what Whitehead called "the fallacy of the perfect dictionary." Natural languages are not like that. Instead, they are inherently vague and ambiguous. First of all, definitions contain words, which require definition, which contain more words, etc. forever. Second, the world contains an infinitude of separately nameable entities, while languages have finite vocabularies (still less, individual speakers of the language). Third, words acquire separate meanings in various contexts, leading some analytic philosophers to claim that the fundamental unit of language is not the word, it is the sentence. Fourth, natural languages, and their component meanings, are constantly changing. (There's more, but let this much suffice). It follows that moral absolutism is impossible, simply because it is impossible to articulate moral commandments with absolute clarity. Moral commandments are inexorably tied to the imperfect languages that express them. Hence, moral relativism.
Relativism of Conflict.
Once one accepts a plurality of ethical principles, moral absolutism is done for. Exodus Chapter 20 lists Ten Commandments. And there are numerous additional commandments throughout the Bible, as well as the body of criminal and civil law. With a plurality of ethical rules, it is certain that some will come in conflict with others, and then one must choose one in favor of another. Which one? It depends upon the particular situation, and the moral judgment of the individual. And that, dear friends, means moral relativism.
It won't do to live according to one single principle, disregarding all the rest. Such an individual is not a moralist; that person is a fanatic. Moliere's play, The Misanthrope, portrays an individual who obeys absolutely just one commandment: never to tell a lie. The consequences, as one might imagine, are disastrous.
The relativism of conflict was vividly displayed during one of Phil Donahue's TV shows, several years ago. A lawyer associated with a fundamentalist "right to life" group, emphatically proclaimed that God absolutely forbids lying.
"You mean," Donahue asked," that there is no conceivable instance in which lying is permitted?"
He replied, "I can't think of one, can you?"
"Of course! It's 1944 and I'm in Amsterdam, standing in front of the house that is hiding Anne Frank family and her family. A Gestapo officer asks me if there are any Jews hiding in that house. Surely I should lie to him."
To the Marxist, capitalism is evil because the capitalist "steals" the product of the worker's labor - in Marxist jargon, the "surplus value" - from the creator of that product.
To the Libertarian, taxation for any purpose other than the securing of the inalienable rights to life, liberty and property, is an illegitimate seizing of personal property - in other words, stealing.
Which of these applications fall under the prohibition against stealing? The Marxist's? The Libertarian's? Both? Neither? "It depends" - it depends on what one means by "stealing." In other words, "it's relative."
Consider the absolute prohibition against divorce: "What God hath joined, let no man put asunder." But what if an abusive and deranged husband is a threat to the life of the wife and children? Permanent separation is one solution. But this will deprive the wife of the support and the children of a stable home that may result from a new marriage. Too bad: no divorce allowed. So why not decide, instead, that a valid marriage never happened in the first place. This may require a meticulous review and examination of the circumstances of the putative "marriage," along with an extension of the list of conditions that would invalidate the marriage. Voila! Annulment - the non-divorce divorce. Accomplished through a re-definition of "valid marriage."
Next: the absolute prohibition against abortion. But what to do with ectopic pregnancies - the implantation of the fertilized egg (conceptus) in the woman's fallopian tube. The fetus will not survive, and the woman's life is seriously threatened. Abortion? Absolutely not! It's "murder!" "The doctrine of double-effect to the rescue!" It is "licit" to remove the ectopic fetus in order to save the life of the woman. But this is not abortion, since the primary intent is to preserve the life of the mother. "Terminating" the life of the fetus is not the intention of the operation, it was a regrettable, albeit inevitable, side-effect. A non-abortion abortion.
In short, if an absolute commandment proves, in its applications, to be intolerable, don't abandon the commandment, just redefine its component terms so as to exclude the problematic applications. Thus it turns out that some absolute commandments are more absolute than others.
Finally, moral absolutism rests upon an assumption of perfect semantic clarity: what Whitehead called "the fallacy of the perfect dictionary." Natural languages are not like that. Instead, they are inherently vague and ambiguous. First of all, definitions contain words, which require definition, which contain more words, etc. forever. Second, the world contains an infinitude of separately nameable entities, while languages have finite vocabularies (still less, individual speakers of the language). Third, words acquire separate meanings in various contexts, leading some analytic philosophers to claim that the fundamental unit of language is not the word, it is the sentence. Fourth, natural languages, and their component meanings, are constantly changing. (There's more, but let this much suffice). It follows that moral absolutism is impossible, simply because it is impossible to articulate moral commandments with absolute clarity. Moral commandments are inexorably tied to the imperfect languages that express them. Hence, moral relativism.
Relativism of Conflict.
Once one accepts a plurality of ethical principles, moral absolutism is done for. Exodus Chapter 20 lists Ten Commandments. And there are numerous additional commandments throughout the Bible, as well as the body of criminal and civil law. With a plurality of ethical rules, it is certain that some will come in conflict with others, and then one must choose one in favor of another. Which one? It depends upon the particular situation, and the moral judgment of the individual. And that, dear friends, means moral relativism.
It won't do to live according to one single principle, disregarding all the rest. Such an individual is not a moralist; that person is a fanatic. Moliere's play, The Misanthrope, portrays an individual who obeys absolutely just one commandment: never to tell a lie. The consequences, as one might imagine, are disastrous.
The relativism of conflict was vividly displayed during one of Phil Donahue's TV shows, several years ago. A lawyer associated with a fundamentalist "right to life" group, emphatically proclaimed that God absolutely forbids lying.
"You mean," Donahue asked," that there is no conceivable instance in which lying is permitted?"
He replied, "I can't think of one, can you?"
"Of course! It's 1944 and I'm in Amsterdam, standing in front of the house that is hiding Anne Frank family and her family. A Gestapo officer asks me if there are any Jews hiding in that house. Surely I should lie to him."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
