I am making here a little fun of the historical concept of Absolutism.

One of the major underlying difference between so called left/liberal and right/conservative (plus fundamentalist) dogmas is the conflict between ‘relativism’ and ‘absolutism’.

In a dogma of absolutism you have ‘true’ and solid values and ‘points’ in your world view that are not negotiable. (Wikipedia on political and moral absolutism.) Some of it’s heads are: Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant and Aristotle.

With a relativistic world one thing leads to another, you hardly find solid positions to navigate, but a mere set of ideas that keep a network of borders that constantly shift. (Wikipedia on moral relativism.) Some of it’s heads are: Karl Marx, Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger.

Absolute concepts and values are of course easier to understand and present, since their set of rules is less wobbly - hence the word absolute.

Karl Marx - bloody relativist communist scummmmm …

Here are some statements about Absolutism by Mr. Richard Hooker (taken again from here):

Political philosophers attempted to extricate themselves from these matters through two different, contradictory approaches: “natural law” or “the Divine Right of Kings.” According to natural law political thinkers, there were immutable natural laws which should govern states and their relations to their citizens and to other states. According to the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, a system of thought derived ultimately from medieval theories of kingship, certain kings ruled because they were specifically chosen by God to be kings. Surprisingly, both of these approaches could yield the same result: the idea that the best form of government is an autocracy, or rule by a single person. This person was not to be questioned or disobeyed; this became known as “absolutism,” since the monarch ruled with “absolute” power, that is, unshared power.

Natural law yielded absolutism in the work of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), who believed all things, including human society, could be understood using principles of geometry. Hobbes’ central argument was that all humans are driven by two and only two impulses: fear of death and desire for power. If left unchecked, human beings would act on these impulses and live violent, brutish, inhumane, and solitary lives. In order to keep these impulses in check, human beings, according to Hobbes, drew up a social contract, which ceded authority to a single person in exchange for a level of security. The single ruler would control the violent and selfish impulses of individual members in a society through brute force; individuals would lose their liberty, but they would gain security and community. Hobbes didn’t care what form this single rule might take, whether a monarch or a dictator, only that absolute power was required to keep society together.

Relative guilty? Absolute Guilty? Relative dead? Absolute dead?

This is of course a nasty rhetoric trick from my side, to mix modern conservative thinking with an 17th century ideology. But I can’t help the feeling that the overall attitude is very similar?!

But it is about time that we leave dogmas behind us as political tools and aspire to use whatever is the best idea for the problem. But that would again imply that that solutions are relative to the problem and it’s circumstances. So is life in the end relative and not absolute? Can one defend absolute ideas in the end? Read this christian refutation of Relativism.