by Gerhard Adam

Created on: August 14, 2008

While I can appreciate the desire for there to be an absolute morality, the reality falls far short. One can create all kinds of scenarios which would horrify many people, and cause them to say that this must represent some absolute moral line which cannot be crossed. However, it just ain't so.

There are countless examples in history of events which were supported by the population that would horrify us today as morally reprehensible. An obvious example is the burning of witches at the stake. To modern society this is morally wrong, but clearly during the times it occurred there was strong support for it, originating with the church itself.

The problem with morality is that it only applies to human behavior and is ultimately subject only to human interpretation. We may consider it immoral to beat a dog, but we don't consider it immoral for a dog to bite a person. Given a human's ability to change their mind, then what is considered moral today may be immoral tomorrow or vice versa.

We've certainly seen the same kind of flexibility with social leaders such as the church, so despite a desire for things to be different, they simply aren't.

Part of the problem is that the desire for an absolute morality is a desire to remove "free will" from people. I don't mean this in some sinister way. We simply find it disturbing that people can change their minds about what morality is, so we want to find something that we can point to that indicates there is a line that no one can cross. If we could find such a thing, then it would indicate that there is some truth or moral value that extends beyond human interpretation and therefore represents some sort of cosmic rule that will keep people in line.

Morality is ultimately a personal responsiblity and if we want to ensure moral behavior exists, then we, as a society, must be prepared to define what it is. When we willingly accept all truths and choices as valid, then we create the sort of moral relativism that many dread. It isn't the fault of morality, but rather the responsiblity falls squarely on those people that are unable or unwilling to live with any guiding principles or philosophy. This doesn't mean there is anything absolute about their individual beliefs, but simply that they must actually have them and live by them.

Moral relativism also doesn't mean that "anything goes", but rather that whatever today's society finds acceptable will be considered moral regardless of what happened in the past or will happen in the future. The truth is that we don't have to look for any external moral principles since we invented them. So if individuals are not willing to take the responsibility to create a moral society then shame on them, but it won't help hoping that there is some absolute morality that will save us.

Learn more about this author, Gerhard Adam.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.