From what I understand, absolutists simply believe that some absolute standards or absolute truths exist by which every action, no matter what the environment, should be governed. For example, we should always love our God above all else, no matter what the situation entails. Nothing on this earth could ever justify not loving God.

Similarly, I believe that it is always wrong to lie and always wrong to kill yourself or someone else who is not deliberately placing others in imminent danger. I know that some would disagree with me here, but I see these as absolute standards or absolute truths.

I believe Travis disagreed with my interpretation of absolutism and relativism. I got most of my ideas from Wikipedia, which defines absolutism as follows:

“Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act.”

Note that this does not say that all standards are absolute – rather, it says that some absolute standards exist. This statement does not say that all actions are right or wrong devoid of context, only certain acts.

Loving God is always right, devoid of context. Lying is always wrong, devoid of context. And killing an innocent person (someone who isn’t placing other lives in imminent danger) is always wrong, devoid of context. My three standards seem very much in keeping with Wikipedia’s portrayal of absolutism.

A different person could have a different set of standards that he considers absolute, and his views would still fall under absolutism.

Conversely, “moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth,” according to Wikipedia. Thus, there is not one single standard in existence which would always hold true to every situation. Ergo, according to relativists, loving God might be appropriate in some contexts but not others.

If my brother hates the smell of fish, and I pass it by his nose to annoy him, the first time it may be ok. He’ll take it with a smile and be more pleased with life at that point than if I hadn’t passed it by him. It was morally right to bother him in that way. If I am asked to stop, that does change the formula. The truth hasn’t changed, but the situation has.

If it is disrespectful to look at someone in the eyes in a particular culture, and you go ahead and do it, thinking the whole time that it is a morally neutral issue, you’ll be doing a morally wrong thing, because you will be offending people in that culture, and that is not what love would have you do.

Seeing this as a relational thing vs. a set of rules may be helpful to some, and others may not find it so. If it’s rules, it’s the same reaction every time. If it’s relational, it’s based on whatever we happen to be feeling, which changes constantly. It seems like it should be some mix of the two.

I believe we need to consider everything when determining morals. You make the best decision you can given the constraints. Obviously we are flawed in this, and we don’t know everything, so we do wrong.

When a thing is obvious, nobody is really interested in hearing the verdict. It’s when the lines are fuzzy and we’re having a very difficult time in determining the truth that people really get excited about the issues. I think that is why stories are so powerful in showing things you might not otherwise see in the same situations. Thus the value of shared texts. Thus the value of HP.

But while Christian ethics should be “relational” in the sense that you speak….what they are not is “situational”.

I don’t think that concepts of an absolute Right and Wrong are Enlightenment (or Platonic) amendments to Christianity.

The idea that God is a Righteous God implies that there exists a (universal, if you will) principle of Right.

We know that sin is anything which separates us from God. This separation occurs because the Righteousness of God cannot abide sin (or “wrong”, if you will).

So far, so good?

So… sin enters the world and separates Man from God, both in the temporal and in the eternal sense.

God, as Christ, fills that gap with love and self-sacrifice.

Christ sends the Holy Spirit into all who believe to act as Comforter and guide.

Now that Christ has paid the penalty for all of our “wrong”, we are meant to spend our time doing what’s “right”.

And what is “right”?

1.) Love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, mind and soul.
2.) Love your neighbor as yourself.

We no longer need to worry about what’s “wrong”, so in that sense, Christ changes the focus. Whereas, pre-Christ, we had the Law of Moses and a lot of moral hand-wringing, post-Christ we have been freed from the bonds of our sin (and that includes worrying about it).

That being said, we aren’t meant to simply go on living as before. We are called to be transformed by the renewing of our mind (the verse goes on to say: “so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.”)

We know what is “right” through the two greatest commandments.

Conversely, we know what is “wrong” through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

But what is “right” and what is “wrong” does not change from situation to situation, person to person—and in that sense, are indeed “absolute”.

I apologize if I’ve rambled and been convoluted. Just trying to express my personal take on things (like any good armchair philosopher/theologian).

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20071022.html#continue

An interesting viewpoint and applicability to a shared text implications.

As a small example, think of the debate about the actions of the good guys in Deathly Hallows: was it right for Harry to use the cruciatus on Amycus? was his self-sacrifice actually an act of suicide, which is a sin? did Molly Weasley commit murder when she killed Bellatrix? Was Dumbledore right to deceive Snape all those years about Harry’s destiny? Was he right to deceive Harry? Did Snape commit a sin in killing Dumbledore?

And now think of the greater world: when is war justified? abortion? euthanasia? suicide? killling someone? And on a smaller scale: lying and deception? stealing? adultery?

I don’t mean to open a debate on any of these issues. Mankind has spent 25 centuries trying to come up with some answers, or at least some guidelines to follow. My point is, it’s not always easy to know. Religion, religious texts, the writings of great authors, the rules of logic, and our God given ability to reason, these are all tools we have to try to make those decisions.

But, God did not wish us to be a race of Automotons(sp?).
He desires for us to choose to do the right thing… but, there again, “the right thing” is always clear (when the Two Greatest Commandments are applied).

So let me paddle around in the shallows for a moment. Getting back to the thought of “shared texts” for a generation, and even across generations, one thing I’m wondering is how much our relatively new environments for sharing and discussion will (and do) affect the depth and kind of sharing that goes on.

I loved a lot of books as a child and a young adult. There may have been a lot of other people out there who loved them too (and I even found a few of them in college). But it wasn’t until recent years, with the advancement of the internet, that I’ve found whole “communities” of people with whom I can think, wrestle, share and speculate. Communities that encompass a huge diversity of people from all walks of life.

I see this as both a very good thing and a sort of scary one. The positives are obvious. Internet discussion groups have become our “common rooms” or our campfires or our library book clubs or whatever you want to call them. The negatives, or at least challenges, involve the limitations of online discussion — not least of which is the fact that it’s not “embodied” communication.

I think John’s post about the importance of shared texts is highly thought-provoking, and I agree that it’s exciting to contemplate that the Harry Potter stories are shaping a generation in some very positive ways. But I will be curious to see exactly how these stories continue to be shared.

Perhaps the most important sharing will always be the real passing on of books to our children, reading them aloud in families and small groups around the table. But another part of the sharing of common texts is going to happen right here, in “virtual community.”

As a Christian, I am an absolutist.
Here’s where I derive that from:

1.) Love the Lord your God with all your Heart, Mind, and Soul.

2.) Love your neighbor as yourself.

I really don’t think there is anything tricky in that. No grey area.
If you are doing those things, your moral choices become crystal clear.
I hate to make it sound so simplistic… but I truly don’t believe God intended us to agonize over trying to decide what may be right and what may be wrong.

Am I alone in thinking this?