Are There Moral Absolutes?

By ARTHUR HIPPLER

(Editor’s Note: Dr. Hippler is chairman of the religion department and teaches religion in the Upper School at Providence Academy, Plymouth, Minn.)

+ + +

In a world that presents a variety of customs and beliefs, there seem to be no universal standards, no moral “absolutes.” Moral relativism may seem modern, but people have long perceived the problem of conflicting cultural practices. The skeptic Sextus Empiricus (AD 160-210) observed that “some of the Ethiopians tattoo their children, but we do not; and while the Persians think it seemly to wear a brightly dyed dress reaching to the feet, we think it unseemly; among the Egyptians men marry their sisters, a thing forbidden by law amongst us” (Outlines of Pyrrhonism, I.14.163).
He concludes “seeing so great a diversity of practices, the wise man suspends judgment as to the natural existence of anything good or bad, or generally to be done.”
The differences can be so startling that we fail to notice the similarities. As C.S. Lewis observes:
“If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own.”
He supported this contention in an appendix to The Abolition of Man, in which he gave numerous examples of moral precepts shared across cultures and throughout history. Wishing to avoid the prejudices that many have to the term “natural law,” C.S. Lewis referred to these shared moral principles as the “Tao” (or “Way”) and the appendix as a whole as “The Illustrations of the Tao.”
For example, the command to “honor your father and mother” is hardly unique to the Hebrew people. In ancient Egypt, the righteous person is able to say, “I tended the old man and gave him my staff.” American Indians praised the one who cared for the “old men.” The Babylonians condemn “despising one’s parents” as a sin. Epictetus, writing in ancient Greece, lists “care of parents” as a moral duty.
Further, all societies have some form of “thou shalt not kill,” some form of prohibition against murder. The righteous soul in the Egyptian Book of the Dead declares, “I have not slain men.” The Hindu scriptures condemned not killing but any form of cruelty. Many cultures condemn not only hateful actions, but hatred itself. The Analects of Confucius for example teach: “He whose heart is in the smallest degree set upon goodness will dislike no one.”
And even though there is a great deal of variety in how marriage is carried out, fidelity to marriage vows is praised everyone. The Babylonian “List of Sins” asks: “Has he approached his neighbor’s wife?” The Nordic Volospá envisions “beguilers of others’ wives” in Hell along with murderers. There is a saying from ancient Egypt: “Love thy wife studiously. Gladden her heart all thy life long.”
In his “Illustrations of the Tao,” Lewis provides examples from almost every continent, going back through five thousand years of recorded history. I have given a few of his numerous examples, but of course these examples could be multiplied further. While the student of cultural diversity is right to be impressed with differences in moral beliefs in the human race, it is simply wrong, as a matter of fact, to declare that cultures present radically different moralities.
On the contrary, certain moral basics are taught in all human societies.
All societies must promote and defend human life. That is the most basic social good, necessary for all the rest. All cultures will allow the taking of human in various ways, and the various beliefs about what constitutes “just killing” clearly conflict. But all societies act to restrict not just killing but even aggression. People may not simply be free to act on their fiercer passions without unbearable social discord.
Similarly, societies must be able to maintain themselves through marriage and family. Human sexual desire, like human aggression, must be channeled in various ways that contribute to the common good. If there are no children, a society has no future. And if those children are born from unstable or impermanent unions, it is harder to raise them with the love and nurture they require. The effort to keep men and women together and caring for their offspring consumes a great deal of collective action and energy, since the raising of human offspring, unlike other animals, takes several years.
It is no accident that the modern societies that have accepted the “Sexual Revolution” are, by and large, all suffering an inability to keep their birthrates at replacement level. Children are seen as “optional,” a matter of personal choice, and not part of the common good.
Each one of these basic moral commands, “Honor your father and mother,” “Do not murder,” “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not steal” and so on clearly promote and protect some basic good without which human society cannot survive and flourish. If human beings are to live happily and harmoniously together, there are limits to how they can behave. They cannot simply act as they please.
And if human beings are naturally social, naturally part of a community, then the behaviors which allow men to live in harmony with each other are not merely conventional but also natural.
These observations only carry us so far. To say that “all cultures agree on a moral practice” is not of course to prove the practice is just. Slavery is almost universal across cultures, certainly in the pre-modern world, but one would not want to say that it is “just” by that fact. Indeed, it is very common for societies to act for their own good in ways that can be harmful to the good of societies around them, who are considered as “strangers” or enemies. Slavery often arises as the result of war between societies, in which the losers are then enslaved.
And it is also true that the objections of relativists such as Sextus Empiricus still must be answered. If there are “moral basics” that are the same across cultures, then why are there so many differences? While some moral practices might be judged the results of bad will or ignorance, what of other practices that seem equally valid approaches toward some basic good? It would be perhaps just as wrong to dismiss “moral relativism” completely as it would to deny “moral absolutes” completely.
Certainly, we are able to see that the claim that there are no moral absolutes fails to be supported by five thousand years of human experience. At least some basic moral commands are part of man’s social nature. However much some beliefs and practices may be “relative,” human life requires fundamental objective goods for its perfection. These goods are not merely cultural, but natural.