Are Morals Absolute?

Why morals must be absolute
A Socratic Dialogue
By Dr. Norman R. Wise
Sam: Socrates is morality absolute or relative?
Socrates: What do you mean by absolute?
Sam: The same at all times and in all places?
Socrates: What do you mean by relative?
Sam: That is obvious, that things are different at different times and in different places?
Socrates: It is obvious but I like to be careful. One can never be too careful when talking about important issues. Speed kills good thought.
Sam: I know but I become impatient.
Socrates: Well then we should proceed since I am sure you do not want to hear my lecture on patience.
Sam: True, so where were we?
Socrates: We had determined that morality is absolute if it is the same at all times and in all places and morality would be relative if is different at different times and in different places. Would you say that is a fair summary?
Sam: Yes, that would seem to be what we are attempting to determine. Which do you think is true?
Socrates: What do we mean by morality?
Sam: Living in the right way. Making my behavior be good instead of evil.
Socrates: So you are suggesting there is a right way to live and a wrong way to live? The right way to live is the moral lifestyle and the wrong way to live is the immoral lifestyle. Is this what you are saying?
Sam: Yes, that would be seem to be the heart of it.
Socrates: So the question is if there is always one “right lifestyle” to have at all times and in all places or if the” right lifestyle” is different at different times and in different places. Is that what we are asking?
Sam: Well and maybe if there really is even a “right lifestyle” at all? Who is to say that there is one lifestyle more right than another lifestyle?
Socrates: So this question would be if there really is any morality at all. Is morality an illusion since there is no distinction between a right or wrong manner of life?
Sam: Yes, is morality just a social invention made up by communities in order to reach some goals?
Socrates: That would perhaps really be ethics and not morality but your point is taken.
Sam: What do you mean?
Socrates: Well I think it is best to distinguish between morality which attempts to define what is the nature of the “right life” or “virtuous life” and ethics which then attempts to take the agreed upon standards of morality and apply them into taboos and laws for society. Ethics would be one part of applied morality. If morality is an illusion then ethics would have rational basis.
Sam: So is morality an illusion?
Socrates: Is reality an illusion?
Sam: No reality is the opposite of an illusion. What “IS” is real and what “is not” is an illusion.
Socrates: I would agree. Reality is absolute and not relative. That which “IS” is reality. The fundamental essence of what actually exists does not change from place to place.
Sam: So what does this have to do with morality?
Socrates: Is there a right way to think about things and a wrong way to think about something? Can one think correctly about mathematics and is it possible to think incorrectly about mathematics?
Sam: Yes, that is obvious. One can think that 2+2=4 or one can think that 2+2=5; but reality is that 2+2=4. So yes, one can think correctly about math or one can think incorrectly about math.
Socrates: So, on is “living right” when one gets the right answer to the math question and one is failing to “live right” when one gets a wrong answer to the math question.
Sam: This is thinking not living?
Socrates: Is thinking not part of life?
Sam: Yes, that is true. But morality has to do with doing not thinking?
Socrates: Do people normally base their actions upon their thinking?
Sam: Yes, most of time we think and then act. However sometimes we simply act emotionally.
Socrates: So thinking can be and many times is an important part of us taking actions?
Sam: Yes, so then thinking has to be part of morality since it is on the basis of thinking we live. Thinking correctly would lead to living correctly.
Socrates: So it would appear. So perhaps what we should define morality as is the way we would logically act based upon a proper understanding of what reality truly “IS”.
Sam: Wait a minute. You are suggesting then that the “right way to live” is simply to logically adapt our lives, thoughts, words, emotions, and actions to the actual state of existence. Our morals should just be the reasonable expression of nature of being, existence or reality.
Socrates: Yes, that would seem to be the case. Morality is a dependent on what “IS”. If God exists then part of a rational lifestyle would b to worship this deity while if God does not exist then it would be absurd and irrational to worship, a waste of valuable time and energy. If there is no God then worship is immoral. If God does exist then worship is moral. It all depends on what “IS”.
Sam: But people do not agree to what reality “IS”, so how can we determine what is moral?
Socrates: There will be disagreement on morals whenever there is disagreement about the nature of reality.
Sam: So morals are relative to what one believes about the nature of reality?
Socrates: Yes, each person will believe that the right way to live is that which best lines up with what they really believe is the state of reality. Now there can be other emotional or social factors that impact our actions. But even these can be broken down and made part of the equation which would logically and rationally explain our actions. Only the actions of insane people are without explanation since they live in a world of illusion and have no touch with reality.
Sam: So to be absolutely sure of the right way to live would require one to absolutely sure about the nature of reality. Is this what you are saying?
Socrates: Yes, and to have logically and consistently thought thru properly the best way to apply that into our daily thoughts, words, emotions, and actions. To be sane is to know and accept reality as it is and then to live in the light of what actually exists free of all illusions. To live sanely is to live a moral life. To the degree I believe in illusion I am to that degree insane and to the degree I believe in things as they truly are, then I am sane.
Sam: But does any human being completely know what is real?
Socrates: No, we are limited. We can know in part what truly is and yet still be ignorant or believe in illusions about other aspects of reality.
Sam: So our ability to “live right” is relative to our thinking right about the nature of how the universe really “IS”. The more we think right about what “IS” then the better we could know how to live.
Socrates: Yes, and in the area of morality the key question is also making a decision to “do” what is sane over that which is insane. Sometimes, doing the right thing will be more difficult than living in an illusion. I might know that drugs keep me from knowing reality and therefore make me less sane but I might decide that I would feel better out of touch with reality so I choose to act immorally and put myself into an illusion. To choose to face reality requires courage since it may not always reflect what we want.
Sam: So can anyone know absolutely how to live right?
Socrates: Only a being who knew the absolute state of reality, who was flawless in logic, and willing to define the “right way” to live in light of that reality regardless of the consequences could know morality absolutely.
Sam: That sounds like a description of God.
Socrates: Yes, since God knows reality with complete knowledge, and is perfect in logic then God would be able to define what is the sane life, for other beings, less knowledgeable about the nature of reality. This is why people turn to revelations from God to help them to define morals. The LOGOS would have a perfect understanding of morality.
Sam: So, is morality absolute or relative
Socrates: In reality it is absolute. Our understanding of morality is relative to our comprehension of reality. We believe one way of life is better than another based upon our beliefs about the nature of what actually exists. If one feels they can know nothing about the ultimate nature of reality then they would feel agnostic about morals as well. Our understanding of morals is limited to our understanding of what ultimately “IS”. However, since morality is an defining of how we ought to live in the light of reality it is as absolute as reality “IS”.