ANSWERS: 2
  • Neither of these views are correct. The basis for moral thinking is understanding the interconnections between all of life. My actions affect others, and vice-versa. Furthermore, "my life" cannot be truly separated from the lives of others. A person who sees this is able to make sound moral decisions without being bound to an absolute set of rules about right and wrong. A person who doesn't see it needs rules -- and possibly some incentive to comply with the rules (the law, God's punishment, social condemnation, guilty conscience, etc.) When I say "seeing the interconnections", I don't mean BELIEVING that everything is interconnected... I mean that the sense of interconnectedness is intimately "wired in" to one's experience of self. This is well down the road of moral development for most people, so we can't dispense with rules and enforcement mechanisms.
  • Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Buddhist monk, wrote: “By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view, threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, mere moral exhortation is insufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality." This quote pretty well sums up my view on moral absolutism vs. moral relativism. There are some things I believe are morally wrong, no matter what the cultural, social, personal perspective, such as: slavery, physical and emotional abuse, death penalty, etc. Good question!

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy