An Examination of Moral Absolutism
How do you know what’s right and what isn’t? Does every action have some sort of inherent value, some predetermined inexorable classification?
This is certainly something that requires a decision on everyone’s part, whether they fully think it out or not. Can moral value be absolute? If so, wouldn’t one by definition be able to apply it to God, and thereby objectively judge the moral value of God’s actions? Would that judgment undermine the very nature of God? Let’s try to think this out together. If you disagree with what I’m thinking, please feel free to let me know.
Moral absolutism is dependent on being determined by an unimpeachable authoritative source. Otherwise it can’t be absolute. So, if absolute moral value exists, some sort of creator thereof has to exist- since, by definition, the value determination isn’t made by way of comparison to other conditions or events.
Moral absolutism requires that every action, behavior, and thought is subject to equal judgment regardless of its context or source of origination.
The nuanced complexity of cause-and-effect means that the objective net-positive/net-negative consequence of any action, behavior, or thought is impossible to be determined. Here’s why: first, we can’t see the past or the future with objective accuracy. The future hasn’t happened yet and memory is tragically inaccurate. Second, there’s the problem of subjective perception- the perception of any individual organism is impossible to be comprehensively and accurately described or understood by any other individual organism. Personally, I can’t imagine how subjective perception could be shown to be false… and the fact that someone else can imagine it proves that perception is subjective. It’s self-refuting. Subjective perception means that my value determination, eventually, will be different than yours. It will be relative to my experience and frame of reference. Also, even if perception was objective-
Every action, behavior, and thought has an unpredictable and infinite momentum & spread, and an indeterminable & (nearly?) infinite string of causation.
Before you poo-poo the above assertion, think about it… Some call it (kind of wrongly but whatever) the butterfly effect. Some call it dependent arising or dependent origination. Every single thing or event that has ever existed forever and everywhere was caused by something. If we don’t know the cause, the only logical conclusion is that we just can’t observe it- not that it’s not there. Since we’re not omniscient, The absolute, objective, and comprehensive moral value of any action, behavior, or thought is and forever will be obfuscated by human limitations. So, if my line of thinking is correct, absolute moral value can’t be determined by humans, by way of judging the outcome of any action, behavior, or thought, even if one were to weigh its value determination with the moral value of its causation. As such, moral value HAS to be relative- unless it’s determined by an unimpeachable authoritative source.
Let’s examine that, shall we? Why yes, we shall.
So, let’s assume that God exists, and that God has revealed, among other things, that (1) God is omnipotent and omniscient, with authoritative and unimpeachable intent, (2) God is inherently good, (3) Some stuff is cool to do and everything else ain’t, and for the purpose of this thought experiment, (4) that when it’s difficult to determine right or wrong because something isn’t explicitly on the naughty list, God is available for consultation and will answer all questions in a manner that can be perfectly understood.
Subjective perception prevents (4). Since the truth of subjective perception is subjective itself and therefore true (a paradox?), God has to exercise a little omnipotence to override this problem.
So, God overrides the problem and clarifies. This thing is wrong, and since humans don’t have the capacity to consider the comprehensive cause and effect, we just have to take the Holy Word for it. God can do what God wants, right? The Word is inherently Good and Righteous.
Maybe not. Consider this: an unimpeachable authoritative source is inherently invulnerable to judgment. This invulnerability is the only way to determine absolute moral value, since the objective measurement of all possible outcomes is impossible for humans to comprehend due to our pesky lack of omniscience. But absolute moral value means that all actions, behaviors, and thoughts are subject to the very same judgment. Which means that that the source, the creator of the value determination, is subject to its own actions being judged by the very same absolute value. It’s absolute! Which means that the creator is impeachable, its authority is questionable, and therefore the creator isn’t omnipotent. An omnipotent creator should be able to do ANYTHING, which would have to include the ability to impeach its own unimpeachable self. Which undermines the entire concept of absolute moral value, making the entire thing subjective and relative.
Absolute morality is a paradox- making Moral Relativism the only logical conclusion.
If relative morality is a necessity, I’ll exercise mine and judge the behavior of God and every other deity by my own relative system of morality. And I find much of the Abrahamic God’s behavior to be cruel, just like the behavior of every other anthropomorphic metaphysical puppet master that’s ever been conceived.
I certainly don’t wanna be judged solely by my mistakes. Maybe if God apologized with something better than a rainbow I’d give God a chance.
