The problem with moral absolutism is that it doesn’t actually exist except in rare cases that generally involve some kind of psychosis. Most people who claim to be moral absolutists are more than willing to make exceptions for certain specific circumstances; they avoid the “relativist” label by classifying their exception as a new rule unto itself. This results in a long list of meticulously defined rules that, taken as a whole, add up to one thing: moral relativism.
Take, f’rinstance, killing. Most Christians can tell you that the sixth commandment says “thou shalt not kill.” The pertinent definition of the verb “kill” given by Merriam-Webster (which will be our reference today, just for convenience’s sake) is to deprive of life. And God knows we do plenty of that, as a country if not as individuals.
Some Christians get around that by translating the sixth commandment as “thou shalt not murder.” Then our definition becomes to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice or to slay wantonly. The problem there is that defining murder as “unlawful” killing moves it out of the religious arena and into the world of secular laws, unless you’re talking about God’s law, in which case you’re saying that God’s law says it’s a sin to disobey God’s law, which is a tautology, and I’m exhausted already.
So a simple commandment, which a statistical majority of Americans are meant to use as a moral guideline, quickly moves from “don’t kill” to “don’t kill, unless the government says it’s legal.” Then you have to define the situations in which killing is legal; pretty much undisputed are court-ordered execution, self-defense, often in defense of other people, and when during military operations.
The new definition of “thou shalt not kill”:
Thou shall not deprive a person of lifeJust a bit wordy, but okay.- unless he/she has been found guilty of a crime by a lawful court
- or unless thou do so in self-defense (or defense of another)
- or unless thou art involved in a military conflict in a time of war
Except wait, no, hold on, what is “self-defense,” really? A woman who stabs her husband as he tries to strangle her will probably get off, but the Menendez brothers, who claimed that they killed their parents after years of abuse, went to prison. So we’re going to have to define it down a little further:
Thou shall not deprive a person of life- unless he/she has been found guilty of a crime by a lawful court - or unless thou do so in self-defense (or defense of another) - and thou art in immediate danger thyself
- and thou hast no other way of escaping and/or attaining personal safety through non-lethal means- or unless thou art involved in a military conflict in a time of war
Yikes. At least we’re done, though.
Except wait, hold on again. Killing is usually necessary in times of war, but that doesn’t give our troops free rein to go around killing indiscriminately, right? We do our best to spare civilians, and we have certain rules concerning the treatment of prisoners. So let’s refine that one down just a bit, too:
Thou shall not deprive a person of life- unless he/she has been found guilty of a crime by a lawful court - or unless thou do so in self-defense (or defense of another) - and thou art in immediate danger thyself
- and thou hast no other way of escaping and/or attaining personal safety through non-lethal means- or unless thou art involved in a military conflict in a time of war - and thou (and thy troops) art in immediate danger
- and/or a crucial target cannot be eliminated without some calculated collateral damage
- and/or it is unavoidable in the heat of combat
Crap. Well, that’s all –
Crap. What about capital punishment? With so much light shining on mistakes made in administering the death penalty, is it really moral to execute criminals? Or, I suppose, alleged criminals, in cases where the evidence is in question?
Ahem:
Thou shall not deprive a person of life- unless he/she has been found guilty of a crime by a lawful court - and none of the members of said court have committed any kind of misconduct or malpractice affecting the outcome of the trial
- and all appeals have been exhausted
- and all evidence available has been properly processed and presented to the jury
- and the jury is comprised of reasonably intelligent individuals who are able to process the evidence shown to them
- and the defendant is competent enough to contribute to his/her own defense- or unless thou do so in self-defense (or defense of another) - and thou art in immediate danger thyself
- and thou hast no other way of escaping and/or attaining personal safety through non-lethal means- or unless thou art involved in a military conflict in a time of war - and thou (and thy troops) art in immediate danger
- and/or a crucial target cannot be eliminated without some calculated collateral damage
- and/or it is unavoidable in the heat of combat
If that’s what your “absolute” moral code looks like, if that's your "absolute" definition of "thou shalt not kill"? You’re a relativist. “Absolute” moral codes like that are the reason that our laws aren’t based on morals, which vary from person to person, but on logic and facts and precedent and cause and effect. There’s a difference between a biblical “thou shalt not kill” and a legal “murder is illegal,” because “murder is illegal” has to come with ten bajillion footnotes like the “absolute” code above. And because people who are “moral absolutists” are kidding themselves.
Watch this space for more news on how so-called moral absolutists are screwing up your life, your girlfriend’s life, your mom’s life, and the lives of our troops in Iraq, among others.
No comments:
Post a Comment