Universal Moral Truth

When I was in college, my suitemates and I had many great debates regarding whether or not moral truth existed or not. I had a friend who was a die-hard relativist, and that was a position I was dead-set against. We argued constantly. I believed, and still do, that moral relativism is a dangerous philosophy that will ultimately spell our undoing.

I would like to point out that there is much confusion in a debate like this. For instance, relativists often seem to use the term "relative" to mean different things. Similarly, the term "absolute" can mean different things, depending on who one is talking to. A similar notion to "absolute" (which typically means a truth which stands on its own and is unchanging) is the notion of "universal" truths (which typically means a truth that applies to everyone). I believe all absolute truths are universal, but not all universal truths are absolute.

To delineate further the difference between these two terms, let's consider how they relate to situational ethics. An absolute truth is one which, regardless of the situation is true, and must be obeyed by everyone. A universal truth is a truth that, given a particular situation, is true for everyone. However, in a different situation, a certain universal truth may no longer apply. For example, I would put forth as a moral absolute that skinning a human being alive for the sake of pleasure is wrong. On the other hand, I would put forth as a universal that killing in times of peace is wrong. The difference is that the second statement deals with a particular situation, whereas the first statement describes only an action and its motivation.

However, I wish to be clear: the existence of universal moral truth need not necessarily imply that there is only one morally acceptable solution to a given situation. There is nothing inconsistent in saying that given situation A, there are five morally acceptable alternative courses of action to choose from and four immoral alternatives. As long as one recognizes that actions have moral undertones, and one admits the possibility that one can be wrong at times, one can concede a certain measure of truth to proponents of situational ethics. Sometimes, the right course of action is dictated by the situation.

What is important in all this is the idea of preserving moral truth as an arena for debate. Although seemingly well-intentioned, moral relativism and situational ethics, when divorced from universal morality, can reduce morality to the realm of whimsy, and that is unacceptable.