The Theory of Moral Absolutism and Relativism:
Ah, yes. The most complex and philosophical issue upon this list is easily the most intriguing one, because it forces an individual to adopt abstract thinking and begin questioning concepts like the nature of good and evil. It's far more difficult to think about this one than it is to, say, think about the economy; because the economy is all about statistics and logical, strictly reality-oriented thinking. The issue of philosophy transcends beyond that into the realm of the stranger and more difficult to comprehend.
Indeed, the entire liberal social view inevitably falls to philosophical relativism. 'Morality is subjective and private in nature', a social libertarian will insinuate. 'It is not the place of the government to force members of the populace to conform to certain moralistic standards that are purely a matter of subjective reasoning. It will inevitably lead to unhappiness and a loss of individualism and the right to self-expression'. However, the absolutist will quickly add, 'but if that is true, then why is it the state's place to keep things like murder and theft illegal?'. This questions was asked by Gideon and Darth Sexy upon this, and in order to clarify my opinions upon the subjective, here is an analogy to feast your minds over:
A burglar enters the house of a solitary man, armed with a gun and intending to kill. For what purpose? Nobody knows but him. Entering the man's bedroom, the burglar turns on the lights and threatens him with his now brandished pistol. Strangely enough, he quickly asks the man a question:
"Are you a moral relativist?"
Bewildered, the man quickly replies "yes"; an honest enough answer. After all, he is a secular liberal, a believer in the concept of moralistic relativism and a staunch opponent of absolutism.
THE BURGLAR: "Then you must understand why there is nothing genuinely wrong with me killing you."
THE MAN: "Actually, I do not. Please elaborate upon that issue."
THE BURGLAR: "It is my truth. There are no rights and wrongs; the concept of good and evil is fictitious. Murder is not evil; our society, led by perfectly fallible human beings, simply adopts it as such. There are no universal good and evils: thus, there is nothing wrong with me murdering you."
THE MAN: "Murdering me would be wrong."
THE BURGLAR: "No, murdering you is wrong according to you. Your views are subjective in nature. By what right do you force them upon me?"
THE MAN: "In actuality, you answered that with your first sentence. Your truth, perhaps, is that you must murder me. My truth is that you must not: in my subjective and personal concept of good, I desire to live. My interests are just as important as your's, and by killing me, you would be violating a basic principle of moral relativism: no ideology or version of the truth is necessary superior to the other. And thus, by what right do you force your version of the truth by directly violating mine? In order for such a thing to be justified, there must be some sort of universal law dictating that your interests are superior and more correct than mine. There is none, and you know that very well."
THE BURGLAR: "Wait a second. But by having me not kill you, then it would mean that your truth is better than mine! You hypocrite!"
THE MAN: "But my choice is black and white in nature. To die or not to die; I can find no alternative to it. Can you genuinely say that killing me is your only truth? Can you not find alternative ones that will not be forced upon another individual? I have no such option. Besides, the benefit you might get- emotional gratification- is nothing compared to what will happen to me; death. You cannot kill me without forcing your truth upon mine and violating my clearly black and white interests in this scenario, while your interests can have several facets to them. You cannot kill me without breaking the principles of moral relativism."
[Awaits applause for this magnificent analogy]
My version of moral relativism was perfectly summed up in that analogy. I think that the burglar, if he was to shoot the man, could not be objectively dubbed as 'evil' because, as he correctly said in his first statements, objective moral standards must be created by an objective source- and that source cannot be a human. Therefore, dubbing people 'evil' and 'good', and pretending to have some sort of objectivity to this statement, inevitably relies upon the existence of God- an existence that cannot be logically substantiated. And even if he was to exist, how do we know what his moralistic standards are? It's impossible.
However, the man is also right. The action would be wrong to him; and the interests of the innocent and victimized party must be upheld and protected, in order to ensure their pursuit of happiness and prevent people's ideologies from being forced upon them. Because of that, murdering him would be wrong according to the ideals proposed by moral relativism. The oppressing party can find alternative truths, and the benefit he will get from the action is absolutely nothing compared to the negatve affect that the oppressed party will suffer. It's the fundamental hypocrisy within 'non-interventionist' advocaters: if you do not intervene within an action, then it is the equivalent of supporting it and treating it as if it is right. You're enabling one party to crush another one's interests.
Finally, we come to yet another, this time historical analogy. The admittedly overused 'Holocaust' one. Let's assume that World War II never comes into play; instead, the United States is informed with military intelligence that Nazi Germany is orchestrating a massacre upon the Jewish populace. In what way do we act?
A) Ignore it.
B) Intervene with military force, dubbing the Nazis 'evil' who deserve to die; bomb the hell out of Germany and force them to stop the massacre, based on the idea that 'it will save more lives'.
C) Attempt to intervene in a diplomatic, potentially aggressively diplomatic manner, attempting to balance the interests of the Jews with Germany's.
Now, as to why these ideals are false or true according to the ideal of moral relativism:
A. False. Because by not doing anything, we are doing the equivalent of supporting and endorsing Nazi Germany's actions. And why are their beliefs superior to their Jews? Why are their interests greater in nature and by what right do they force it upon them? Not to mention that we must have compassion towards the countless deaths that will come as a result of not intervening.
B. False. Why? Because we cannot objectively dub the Nazis evil and act as if our actions are justified because we are the 'good guys' and the Nazis are the 'bad guys'. There is no universal, absolute rulebook that gives us the right to dictate who is moral and who is not, and who deserves to die. It is not our place, nor do we have the moral right, to pretend as if our occasionally simplistic beliefs of good and evil are absolute. Thus, it is simply wrong to call someone evil and condemn them to death. Instead, we must treat everyone like human beings and attempt to think beyond our entirely subjective standards.
C. True. Because doing so will attempt to balance the two moralities in the most just conceivable way. Not treat one as necessary better than the other, but prevent one ideology and morality from treating itself as universal and forcing itself upon people who do not consent to it. That should always be our goal in international situations of the sort. Act as a hopefully objective arbiter (which may require the usage of the UN over the United State's forced- can we genuinely claim to be objective, after all?). If diplomacy fails, we move on to aggressive diplomacy- which can hardly, on a logical basis fail. If even that concept fails, what do we do? Nothing and revert to A? Whose interests should be treat first? The answer lies in the analogy. The oppressed party is always the one not facing a choice, not have alternatives and getting harmed far more than the oppressing party is being benefited. Perhaps extremely, extremely restrained military usage is in order. If even that fails? I don't know. I suppose we must judge it depending on the situation.
Now, B is the one generally advocated by conservatives; A is the one advocated by falsely compassionate liberals or nihilists, while C is the logical relativist response. Now, taking forth the option of C may, in the most extreme of cases, lead to the necessity of heavy military action (as proposed in B)- but unlike B, it does not treat it as a first resort based on simplistic generalizations and concepts. Just War vs. Total War.