Morality, Society and Absolute Truth

Some people believe that a society without absolute truth is possible, but not one has ever been built through the whole of human history. All societies obey laws. Laws are, for the most part, expressed as absolutes. If one performs some prohibited action, one is arrested and punished. Throwing absolute truth out of our legal system seems to invite anarchy and court disaster.

Of course, there is a difference between legality and morality, and discussions concerning absolute truth generally deal with morality. I believe the careful non-absolutist will recognize this distinction when making his or her case. Of the two concepts, morality is generally thought to be the more important. In fact, morality should help dictate what constitutes legality, and if laws are unjust, presumably it is morality that drives the citizens to protest and fix them.

What, then, do we make of morality? When people claim there is no Absolute Truth, do they mean there is no moral truth? If so, that is a very dangerous position indeed. The very foundation of our legal system crumbles-we have no real reason to obey the law, and laws can be passed in a whimsical or even draconian fashion. Unjust laws that discriminate by race and gender, or that squelch dissent by threat of execution cannot be questioned on the grounds that they are immoral. Clearly, we need morality in some form or other when we are passing laws. But how should we understand moral truth? Is it absolute or is it relative?

For myself, I believe it is a mix. Contrast the following statements: "All moral truths are absolute," "Some moral truths are absolute," and "No moral truths are absolute." For the sake of clarity, let me point out a moral absolute so obvious that you can't deny it and expect to be taken seriously. "Skinning alive a random human for pleasure's sake is immoral." I don't think I need to argue to prove that point; it is just something I see and I expect others to see as well.