A CRITICAL EXPOSITION OF GEISLER’S NOTION OF GRADED ABSOLUTISM

Graded Absolutism - as an ethical theory is the view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong regardless of contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. It describes that a morally absolute command like “do not kill” can be greater than another moral absolute command like “do not lie.” The writings of the Christian ethicist, Norman Geisler, presents a detailed version of the theory. And it maintains that graded absolutism is also known as ethical hierarchicalism. Geisler considers that all ethical approaches are inadequate or unsound for Christian way of living, except graded absolutism. Accordingly, the theory became, for him, the most realistic, consistent, and biblically viable method of morality. But why would Geisler discredit ethical consequentialism as a viable option for Christian living? Would principles of graded absolutism not rather be reinforced by principles of ethical consequentialism? In other words, would graded absolutist adherents not be motivated to keep morally absolute commands, knowing full well the consequences that would ensue in non-adherence to the command? These questions constitute the problems that motivated this research. And using expository, analytical and critical methods of investigation, the research work concludes that even though Geisler’s ethical hierarchicalism has made some positive contributions in the realm of moral reasoning, the moral technique must be generally acceptable because it is individualistic, naturalistic, humanistic, situational, relativistic, utilitarian, and morally inadequate. The work recommends a modification of Geisler’s theory to take into consideration consequentialism as a necessary tool for reinforcing his theory.