pmd@cbscd5.UUCP (06/05/83)
Absolute value systems sounds like an interesting topic for discussion to me. I am an adherent to an absolute value system called "graded absolutism". This system is described in some detail and compared to other absolute value systems in the book "Options in Contemporary Christian Ethics" by Norman Geisler. The absolutes are found in the Bible. The first chapter briefly describes the main relativistic value systems such as processism, hedonism, skepticism, nominalism, utilitarianism, existentialism, subjectivism, and situationism. He explains that total relativism is no option for biblical Christianity. The two basic reasons for this being that the arguments for total relativism are unsuccessful and often self defeating, and that the Bible declares that God is absolute and unchanging (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8; 1:12). The moral law is a reflection of God's unchanging character (cf. Matt. 5:48). He also states that total absolutism is equally unacceptable. He says, "Christianity is rightly absolutistic, since its ethic is based on the Absolute (GOD). However total absolutism in every area is also unacceptable for Christians, for several reasons. First, finite man does not have an absolute understanding of God's absolutes. ... Second, not all biblical prescriptions are intended for all men at all times in all places (which is what is meant by an absolute). ... Finally, not all ethical commands have equal weight." Geisler then goes on to compare three options in absolutistic Christian ethics: 1. Unqualified Absolutism - the option classically presented by Augustine. This system has been defended by some philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant and theologians including John Murray and Charles Hodge. Basically this system holds that all moral laws are absolute and carry the same weight. All actions that are morally wrong are inherently wrong in themselves, without consideration for the motive behind the action. When a conflict arises between to absolute moral laws, the conflict is only apparent, not real. Basically, conflicts are dealt with by ignoring them. 2. Conflicting Absolutism - this option acknowledges that there can be real conflicts between the absolute moral laws of Scripture in many situations. Situations in which these conflicts arise are inevitable. The conflicts are dealt with by stating that, in a situation where a conflict exists, the individual can't help but do something morally wrong--he must choose the lesser of two evils. The problem with this is that is means that even Christians can't help but sin, and be judged guilty for the sin they commit. Thus there is no way to be able to obey the commands of scripture that we not sin (Matt. 5:48). 3. Graded Absolutism. Briefly, the premises upon which graded absolutism is based are as follows: 1. Absolute moral laws exist but not all moral laws carry the same weight. This is inferred by Scripture in a number of places. Jesus spoke of the "weightier" matters of the law (Matt. 23:23) and of the "least" (Matt. 5:19) and the "greatest" commandments (Matt. 22:36). I think that in order to have a true absolute value system the values have to be derived from a standard external to man himself. Otherwise, as you have said, the closest we can really come to an "absolute" value is one which has come to be regarded as absolute by virtue of its strong support. The basis of a true absolute value system has to be revelation from a higher source than man's knowledge and imperfect reasoning. For biblical Christianity, the standard is God's revelation. God has revealed his standard for right and wrong both in nature (his general revelation) and in Scripture (his special revelation). God has written his law on the hearts of true Christians (Romans 2:12-15) and in his Word, the Bible (Psalm 19:7-14). In an absolute value system, moral laws are put in the same category with physical ones, i.e. moral laws are discovered, not made. 2. Unavoidable conflicts exist between moral laws. Numerous examples from Scripture are given in the book. 3. No guilt is imputed to us for the unavoidable, providing the higher law is kept. Which is law is the higher law is determined by the precedents given by scripture as they apply to the particular situation. This differs from situation ethics in that situationism (as propounded by Joseph Fletcher) does not acknowledge that any contentful absolutes exist. Graded Absolutism holds that the universal commands of Scripture, (i.e. prohibitions against blasphemy, murder, idolatry) are absolutely binding on all men at all time in all places. Situationism holds that the situation *determines* what one should do in a given case. As Geisler says, "graded absolutism holds that situational factors only help one to *discover* what God has determined that we should do. That is, the situation does not fill an empty absolute[1] with content and thereby determine what one should do. Rather, the situational factors merely help one to discover which command of God is applicable to that particular case." [1] The only absolute Fletcher acknowledges is love. This is empty because one cannot know what love means, and what actions it will dictate, in advance of the situation. To me graded absolutism seems to be the most biblical (Geisler demonstrates its biblical soundness compared to the other two forms of absolutism in the book) and workable value system. For me, this form of absolutism is satisfying because it is not based on the wavering standards of society, it is based on the unchanging character of the God of the Bible. Well, I hope you found this article worth your reading. I I would appreciate your thoughts on it. I think you will find the book worth reading if you are interested. Its only 114 pages of pretty easy reading. Geisler has also written some more extensive books on ethics, which I haven't read yet. Paul Dubuc
tim@unc.UUCP (06/07/83)
This was an interesting presentation. What I wonder, though, is whether there is any good reason for someone who is not a monotheist to adopt an absolute value system. Any opinions on the subject? Tim Maroney
ma187er@sdccsu3.UUCP (06/13/83)
It is not nessecarily true that ALL value systems are subjective.
There are certain values that we all have as a human animal in the
company of other human animals. It's a very bad idea to have a value
system that dictates that you should kill people you don't like as
animals with such traits are lousy survival risks and will eventually
die out. So some values are ingrained in us at an early age, because
they must be universally obeyed by all members of the group for the
group as a whole to survive. In fact, if you look at the ten
commandments carefully, you will find that many of them are pretty
basic rules that all homo sapiens must follow to form a cohesive
group that is a good survival risk. (Note that this is not meant to
be a plug for religion- I'm personally an agnostic.)
Good ole Darwin made a wonderful point when he hypothesized that
Man had developed a brain to make him the most versatile animal and
thus the best survival risk, because we used our brains to come up
with a set of rules by which to live that made us the best survival
risk. The rules aren't quite hard-wired in, and so we can change them
if we need to. However, some of these are very basic and are followed
or obeyed by all rational members of society- like the universal
value that murder is wrong.
Ah well, I shall stop here and let you all flame me for what I
said wrong.
Not afraid to take the definition of "value"
into my own hands,
Jack of Shadows.faustus@ucbvax.UUCP (06/13/83)
Paul Dubuc presents an interesting description of different value systems and their relation to the Bible and Christian theology. I think that the important issue here, though, is not what value systems are the most valid by virtue of their consistency with scripture, but rather how we can determine the value of scripture in the first place. If someone already believes in the divine origon of the Bible, then it makes sense to ask what moral systems are compatible with it, but I personally would rather ask how we can justify our belief in the divine origin of the Bible in the first place... Wayne
rh@mit-eddi.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (06/24/83)
An interesting aspect of evolution is that Man (Person) has evolved to the point where s/he has defeated the laws of natural selection by keeping alive those who could not live without someone else caring for them.
faustus@ucbvax.UUCP (06/25/83)
Rh@mit-eddi makes a point that is a large part of the philosophy of Nietzsche (which, by the way, is very relevant to the present discussion): we are defeating nature and our own continued evolution by our charity towards the weaker members of society. To quote Nietzsche from "Beyond Good and Evil": "What, then, is the attitude of the two greatest religons... to the surplus of failures in life? They endeavour to preserve and keep alive whatever can be preserved; in fact, as the religons for sufferers, they take the part of those upon principle... [They] are among the principal causes which have kept the type of "man" upon a lower level- they have preserved too much of that which should have perished." This is a very extreme viewpoint; in fact, it is the starting point for the Nazi idealogy. I think the important lession that one can gain from Nietzsche is that if you are going to throw absolute value systems away, you had better have some source of values that will prevent society from degenerating into barbarism (of course, Nietzsche thinks that society should degenerate into barbarism, so you can't argue with him on this score). Wayne