In Defense of Moral Absolutism and Universal Ethical Law: a Personal Philosophical Statement

(A brief excerpt from my full personal thesis)

The resolute standard of ethicality for all decisions must first be ideologically separated from the standard of rationality, and then universally applied in adherence to a deontological model of consequentially predetermined absolutism. This ethical principle, along with most other formats of divine command theory, is habitually disparaged for a myriad of logistical reasons. However in the following sections I aim to disprove the historical vilification of faith-based ethical systems by comprehensively defending the necessity for universal moral law, separating ethicality from rationality, and generally chronicling my personal attempts to reconcile faith and applied ethics. 

Universal law must exist. A frequent contention of universal moral law suggests it is unrealistic to abide by tangibly; however ethical standards are not meant to be easily obtainable. For mankind is innately flawed, subject to the violent tendencies outlined by Thomas Hobbes and dwelling within a physical landscape that reflects an absolutist state of sinful uniformity; one need not look to the morally reprehensible atrocities that span history to reinforce such ideals. Accepting the nature of human essence as perennially imperfect, and operating in alignment with the concept of a divine, supernatural deity, we may presume that ethical laws tasked with governing the morality of any given decision or act should resolutely be constructed in such a manner that steadfast compliance is impossible. For any ethical system that permits human behavior to be consistently justified is self-defeating in practical utility; an ethical system’s purpose is to function as the incontestable standard by which natural human behavior will perpetually fall short of, and if even small populations of individuals are capable of invariably obeying falsely labeled “ethics”, the need for strong ethical systems to govern our lives evaporates. Ethics should exist as a system to which individuals judge the pragmatic choices of their lives in comparison to without regards to consequence or common rationale in some cases.  Thus the moral law maintains a state of infinite authority, for no man may ever follow the law to its fullest for more than a short period of time. 

The reasoning I have just set forth potentially frames some of standard Kantian ideology’s major criticisms in a counter-traditional perspective, for those who oppose the practicality of Immanuel Kant’s famous categorical imperative typically allude to the nonviability of such a concept.

Yet I contend the intransigence of universality itself is indicative of ethical legitimacy due to its antithetical relationship with essential humanism.

Moral absolutes act as the four corners of an ethical palisade, a protective enclosure in which we operate ethically, and though we may often stray outside the enclosure, the unwavering disposition of the moral stakes allow us to reorient ourselves. We may look the great teacher of history to illustrate the necessity for such resolute boundaries. For the vast majority of American history, the societal consensus had wandered beyond the enclosure of universal law, denying African Americans the same innate moral rights that were thoughtlessly inherent to European populations. Yet in both monumental times of racial justice, virtuous leaders such as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. were able to stoke the fire of their respective movements by opening the public eye to the reality that America had drifted outside the ethical palisade. When the dominant social norms and cultural acceptability influence political oppression of minorities, the only way to challenge that governing framework is to condemn it by appealing to universal law.

If these ethical palisades either fail to exist or fail to be heeded, we have no way to determine what is ethical; our basic conceptions concerning the dichotomy of right and wrong dissolve into humanly flawed, incomprehensible pandemonium.

Admittedly I have frequently questioned the integrity of my own conviction, for I am perpetually anguished by the temptation to permit situational exceptions to the principles of universal law fabricated in my own mind. After much contemplation, I discovered much of the discourse regarding ethics to lie perpendicular to basic human reason and logic on the same plane. The chronic temptation for ethical rules to adapt “situational” or “circumstantial” constituents exists primarily because of the mostly tenable misconception that actions or decisions which are ethical to make in disconcerting circumstances should thereby be rational as well. Following universal principles is neither rational nor reasonable, as even certain deplorable actions of lying and stealing may be logical in precise circumstances; however incongruent to dogma of utilitarian thinking, rational choices that produce palpable good for the greatest amounts of individuals cannot always be reconciled with the burden of ethicality.

There is no more apt term for such an onerous responsibility, as truly living ethically often runs contrary to the comfort of human reason, and will unequivocally necessitate acting in complete disregard for rationality at least sporadically.

Following the Augustinian view, one abiding by Christian faith who undertakes the burden of an ethical existence simultaneously acknowledges our propensity to act rationally, such as in the case of lying to save numerous lives, cannot be ethically justifiable no matter how noble or just the outcome. This contradiction of congenital human reason is emotionally intolerable to our biological psyche. Given this ramification then, it is relatively unsurprising that many influential scholars and thinkers have shunned the existence of universal morals for its unreasonable demand, pointing to the visible implementation of consequential ethics like utilitarianism into public life, notably in the arenas of government and business. The danger of pandemic conformity is the tendency for the marriage between rationality and ethicality to become normalized; despite its prevalent criticisms, relativism occupies a significant proportion of American citizens. How can one not subscribe to the magnetism of reason and rationality when the very foundations of Western civilization are deeply rooted in such values? From the very commencement of our existence, we are formally and informally socialized to abide by ethically good standards unless another, more rational choices outweighs the first in terms of its outcome.