Conflicting Absolutism

A second deontological view of ethics is called conflicting absolutism. The main consideration of conflicting absolutism is that we live in a fallen world, thus sin is unavoidable in ethical conflicts. These necessary times of sin are called “choosing the lesser evil.” However, the remedy in these occasions where sin is so unavoidable is the forgiveness of God who is quite aware of man’s sinful plight.

Conflicting absolutism posits that God’s moral laws are absolute; that is there is never a time that His laws are broken without culpability. Yet men do face real ethical dilemmas. This is because we live in a fallen creation. However, such conflicts obligate the Christian to choose the lesser evil. For instance, if a lie can save an innocent life from being murdered, then one should choose to lie. Lying is certainly a lesser evil than murder; it is better that a lie occur than a murder however sinful the lie is. Finally, forgiveness is not automatic, but available simply by confession and repentance.

The positive points of conflicting absolutism are: 1) it preserves moral absolutes. 2) It posits real moral conflicts. 3) It ties moral conflicts to the fall of man. 4) Sin is sin with no exceptions.

While at a glance conflicting absolutism seems quite commendable, it has some essential problems. The first and most glaring is the very idea of a moral duty to sin is morally incongruous. Moral sin is an oxymoron. It makes mockery of Christian ideals such as repentance. How can one repent of an act that he would commit again and is in fact obligated to do so? Furthermore, when various solutions are offered to this absurdity, they actually morph the conflicting absolutist position into either the unqualified or the graded view. Secondly, unavoidable sin cannot carry culpability. How can a person carry the blame for what could not be helped? Choice is always a factor in guilt. One is not guilty of what he could not evade but rather guilt is associated with what he could evade. Thirdly, if being in a fallen world makes sin unavoidable then Jesus must have sinned. Given the propositional logic of conflicting absolutism, this is a necessary conclusion. Finally, if the conflicting absolutist wavers and says Jesus did not sin, then it must be concluded that Jesus faced no moral conflicts and the very foundational essence of this view is destroyed; any further attempts to rescue this view simply morphs into one of the other two views of absolutism.

Conflicting absolutism suffers from an overly simplified definition of sin. It fails to recognize that a sinful act flows from the heart and according to Jesus the intent of the law itself (The Sabbath was created for man and not vice-versa.) This system must by nature render Jesus as a sinner when He allows His disciples to pick and eat the grain on the Sabbath day contrary to the law. Furthermore, God is not spared from the assault of this system of ethics. In His instructions to kill all of the inhabitants of cities conquered by the Jews in the Promised Land, He too must be deemed a sinner. In short, if “sin is sin” and “sin is unavoidable,” no one, including Jesus and God (proper,) can escape the culpability of this system. While this view is hailed for its emphasis on the fallen nature of men, it’s over simplification of sin fails to bear the weight of the true complexities of a fallen world.