Discussion: Relativism vs Absolutism (Reply)

Is Christian Ethics Relativistic or Absolutist?

Relativism is defined as the view of ethical truths that rely on the people or groups that hold them. Relativism can be broken down into other subgroups. Ethical relativism is the idea that nothing in itself is really right or wrong, but actions can be deemed right or wrong because of their interaction with other things. The most common subgroup within ethical relativism is cultural relativism. It tells us that what is right or wrong is determined by a person’s culture and beliefs. Cultural relativists believe what is working for a certain culture or society works for them, but if it does not work for another group or culture then it is simply not the right fit. Another reason for believing in cultural relativism is that it might actually describe things the way they are really are. Therefore, if relativism is true, moral progress cannot exist. This is due to the base of relativism saying, “if what works for my culture and society is right for us, then it must be right.”

Similarly, absolutism can also be defined and then broken down into subgroups upon subgroups. Absolutism is a defined universal standard or principle. Ethical absolutism is the idea that there a some ageless moral principles that all people should accept. This group of thinkers are typically viewed as intolerant because they often disregard the ideas of people who do not agree with their ideas of absolutes. The next layer to absolutism are nihilism and subjectivism. Nihilism is the view that moral are illusions. They simply do not exist. They are just an idea. If nihilism was really true, then nothing is actually morally wrong. Subjectivism is the view that morality is different for each person. Basically you decide what is moral for you and run with it; that set of morals does not have to work for someone else.

I believe that Christian ethics are relativistic. While all Christians are supposed to believe the truths of the Bible, each Christian defines those boundaries differently. My pastor recently spoke about his time as a youth pastor where he was asked a lot about how far is too far. I think every person asks them self that. An example of this would be kissing. Some people believe it is sinful and unclean to kiss before marriage. Others think it is fine as long as it does not go any further. Each person defines the moral boundaries differently and each denomination translates differently, some are right and some are so wrong on many levels.

What, if any, are the differences between ethical relativism and the subjective aspects of Christian ethics?

As stated previously, ethical relativism is idea that actions in them self are not really wrong, but the things they are associated with can make them morally right or wrong. Subjective elements are moral judgements are individual evaluations that work for a certain person. ( “All moral standards or truths are dependent only upon the opinions and feelings (not fact) of the utterer making the subjective moral judgment.”) These two are very similar in that a person basically decides what they view as right or wrong. However, ethical relativism takes it deeper. It breaks the down to whether or not the specific circumstances around the action are moral or not. An example would be a murder. Self-defense is seen as justified by most people because the person reacted to danger. However, being mad that someone did not get you your gram of cocaine and killing them is typically not a justifiable killing. Another difference between two are what they are based upon. Subjectivism is greatly based upon emotions and feelings while ethical relativism is based on a person’s created morals. 

Lecture 3 -Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism -David Agler Lecture 3 -Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism. (n.d.). Retrieved January 18, 2022, from http://www.davidagler.com/teaching/ethics/Lecture_3_Ethics_Subjectivism.pdf