In taking a look at what is written about ethics, one finds in the broadest strokes these two major questions: one is the basic nature of values, and the second concerns the basis for determining these values. The first is the question of "meta-ethics" and there are two major positions: There are those who say that values are not independently real but are the creations of human beings. Then there are those who say that values are independently real and must be discovered rather than invented.
The second question is the question of "normative ethics" and there are three major positions: There are the virtue ethicists who see values as being derived from ideals of human nature, often called virtues. Then there are the deontological ethicists who see values as being derived from duties and rules. Finally there are the consequential ethicists who believe that values are derived from the consequences of action. In other words, to put it simply we can ask if a moral or good action is that which 1) makes you a good person, 2) obeys the correct duties and rules, or 3) produce good consequences.
If we start with a clean slate, the beginning of ethics must certainly come from the realization that actions have consequences. The question of normative ethics, however, underlines what is to be considered the most important consequences. In virtue ethics it is the effect on the character of the person that does the action which matters most. In deontological ethics, what matters most is the effect on the integrity of the duties and rules that society recognizes. And, finally, in consequential ethics it is the immediate tangible impact on the well being of people that counts most.
However, there are some fundamental rational flaws in the second two positions, when one considers the possible conflict between what is intended and what actually happens. In consequential ethics we have a problem when the best of intentions has disastrous consequences. This not only places us in a quandry in regards to blame but also leads to considerable uncertainty in the ethics of all action. Shall we justify a crime by the possibility that people will actually benefit by it? In deontological ethics there are serious questions about the universality of duties and rules, for circumstances often arise when obedience to duties or rules causes harm. We often try to handle this rather common problem by talking about the spirit rather than the letter of the law. But this only underlines the flaws in deontological ethics rather than actually resolving the problem. I find myself supporting virtue ethics, although I would be interested if anyone sees flaws in this position that I have not considered.
What then is it that people are talking about when they use the words "absolute values"? Logically the word "absolute" suggests a comparison with the term "relative", which suggest that we consider something called moral relativism. In the ethical position called "moral relativism", moral or ethical propositions are not considered to reflect absolute or moral truths, but are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Is it possible that slavery was justified in a time of history where this was the only alternative to slaughter? Is it possible that polygamy is justified in a society where females greatly outnumber the males who can protect and/or provide for them? Is cannabalism justified when it is the only means of personal survival?
In contrast to this then, "absolute values" would seem to suggest that what is ethical is not relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. When looked at in this light this seems to go back to the first question of "meta-ethics" about whether values are independently real or invented by society. However, it seems to me that there is some confusion involved in this, because when some people talk about absolute values, they seem to mean that the difference between what is good and what is evil is decided by the will of someone whom they call God. Effectively then, the difference is determined by the arbitrary decision of this person God (if you believe He exists) or by their religion (if you do not). People, therefore, often reject this term "absolute values" because it seems to them that the difference between good and evil ought to be based on some absolute principle like avoiding harm to other people - or other living things. And yet in regards to the question of "meta-ethics" these positions are practically reversed, for what is arbitrarily decided by religion/God seems to have a less independent reality than that which is decided by some fundamental principle.
When the two fundamental questions of ethics are applied, the "absolute values" position refering to the will of God might be considered a created deontological ethics, while moral relativism also represents a created deontological ethics, and so the difference between these suggest that there is third important question of ethics regarding whether ethical determinations are neccessarily universal or not. Although in the case of discovered ethics (values are independently real) this seems to be exclusively of the universal variety.
However, there is a moderate postion between those of absolute values and moral relativism that is called pluralism. Pluralism suggests that there are some values which may be equally correct even though they are in conflict with each other and even though it is not possible to objectively say which is more important. The example which comes to my mind are the differences between east and west in regards to how honesty/truth and harmony/beauty are valued in these societies. It seems that in the west a greater importance is placed upon honesty and truth, while in the east a greater importance is attached to harmony and beauty. These values clash when the truth is ugly or destructive to the harmony of the family, society or nation. Pluralism differs from moral relativism because there are limits to what can be considered equally correct.
Consider this: Are there circumstances in which the rape, torture and murder of a child can be considered an acceptable recreational activity? If not then that is a universal - an absolute. Since the parameters of this can be varied continuously we can explore the limits of this absolute and even explore the key reasons why this is an absolute. But that means that this one absolute becomes the basis for an absolute system of morality - although NOT one that precludes pluralism. In other words, pluralism suggests that ethics may be a complex combination of both universal moral truths which are discovered and values which are decided arbitrarily by ones society, culture or religion.
I like to use the following imagery to look at the situation. When we consider the difference between what is good and evil in all the possibilities of life, what do we envision when good is represented by light and evil is represented by darkness. Do we see a single point of light surrounded by darkness in all directions? That often seems to be the image held by those who believe in "absolute values". Pluralism suggest a different image: one of light in all directions, but where there are points of darkness which one must avoid. Christians may naturally gravitate towards the first image thinking that Christ is that one point of light towards which everyone must go. However, since I believe in an infinite God and the infinite possibilites of life, it is second image of light in all directions which makes more sense to me.
