Absolutism
Absolutism or the Age of Absolutism (c. 1610 – c. 1789) is a historiographical term used to describe a form of monarchical power that is unrestrained by all other institutions, such as churches, legislatures, or social elites. The term ‘absolutism’ is typically used in conjunction with some European monarchs during the transition from feudalism to capitalism, and monarchs described as absolute can especially be found in the 16th century through the 19th century. Absolutism is characterized by the ending of feudal partitioning, consolidation of power with the monarch, rise of state power, unification of the state laws, and a decrease in the influence of the church and the nobility.
Rady argues absolutism was a term applied post-hoc to monarchs before the French Revolution with the adjective ‘absolute’ goes back to the Middle Ages. Deriving from the Latin absolutus or ‘absolved’, it had a predominantly legal meaning, describing power that took no heed of the law’s constraints.
Absolute monarchs are also associated with the rise of professional standing armies, professional bureaucracies, the codification of state laws, and the rise of ideologies that justify the absolutist monarchy. Absolutist monarchs typically were considered to have the divine right of kings as a cornerstone of the philosophy that justified their power (as opposed to the previous order when the kings were considered vassals of the pope and the emperor).
Absolute monarchs spent considerable sums on extravagant houses for themselves and their nobles. In an absolutist state, monarchs often required nobles to live in the royal palace, while state officials ruled the nobles’ lands in their absence. This was designed to reduce the effective power of the nobility by causing nobles to become reliant upon the largesse of the monarch for their livelihoods.
There is a considerable variety of opinion by historians on the extent of absolutism among European monarchs. Some, such as Perry Anderson, argue that quite a few monarchs achieved levels of absolutist control over their states, while historians such as Roger Mettam dispute the very concept of absolutism. In general, historians who disagree with the appellation of absolutism argue that most monarchs labeled as absolutist exerted no greater power over their subjects than other non-absolutist rulers, and these historians tend to emphasize the differences between the absolutist rhetoric of monarchs and the realities of the effective use of power by these absolute monarchs. The Renaissance historian William Bouwsma summed up this contradiction: “Nothing so clearly indicates the limits of royal power as the fact that governments were perennially in financial trouble, unable to tap the wealth of those most able to pay, and likely to stir up a costly revolt whenever they attempted to develop an adequate income.”
Rational absolutism is the belief that universal moral principles exist and can be discovered through reason, rather than through divine authority or personal opinion. This philosophical stance suggests that certain actions are objectively right or wrong, regardless of the situation or cultural context. It is rooted in Enlightenment ideals, with thinkers like Immanuel Kant attempting to create a rational, a priori system of ethics.
Core principles
Universality: Moral laws are consistent and apply to all people, everywhere and at all times.
Discoverable by reason: These moral truths are not arbitrary but can be found through logical deduction and rational thought.
Objective truth: Moral truths are real and exist independently of what individuals or groups believe.
Absence of context: The moral status of an action is not dependent on its circumstances; a wrong action remains wrong no matter the outcome.
Examples
A rational absolutist would believe that actions like murder, torture, and theft are inherently wrong and that this conclusion can be reached and supported through reason.
Systematic racism would be considered wrong because it violates a universal moral principle that all human beings deserve to be treated with equal dignity, a principle derivable through rational argument.
Contrast with other views
Moral Relativism: This view holds that moral truths are relative to the individual, culture, or society, and there are no universal moral standards.
Divine Command Theory: This approach bases morality on the commands of a divine being or religious text, which may or may not be based on reason.
Consequentialism: Unlike absolutism, which focuses on the action itself, consequentialism judges the morality of an action based on its consequences.
Rational absolutism is a philosophical concept combining the political structure of absolute monarchy with the Enlightenment belief that reason can discover universal truths. It suggests that a ruler could use rational principles to govern with absolute power, instead of relying solely on divine right, and that a stable moral code could be based on reason alone. This approach aims to create a just and orderly state by grounding a monarch’s power in rational and logical principles. [1, 2, 3]
Key concepts
- Rationalism: The belief that reason is the primary source of knowledge and the best path to truth, as opposed to empiricism (knowledge from experience) or divine revelation.
- Absolutism: A political system where a single ruler has total, unchecked power over the state and its people.
- Moral Absolutism: The belief that there are universal, unchanging moral truths that apply to all people at all times, which can be discovered through reason.
- “Enlightened Absolutism”: This is a form of government in which absolute monarchs embraced Enlightenment ideas, such as reason and human rights, and used them to guide their rule. An example would be Frederick the Great of Prussia, who was an admirer of the Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
How it differs from other forms of absolutism
- Divine Right Absolutism: In this traditional model, a monarch’s authority is justified by God. Rational absolutism replaces divine authority with the authority of reason as the source of the ruler’s legitimacy and power.
- Secular Absolutism: While rational absolutism is secular, the two terms are not identical. Rational absolutism emphasizes the use of reason, whereas secular absolutism simply means the ruler is not a religious leader.
- Modern Absolutism: Some modern political movements might be described as absolutist, in the sense that they use reason to justify their actions and advocate for their ideology. However, they may not be a form of government with a single ruler who holds all power. [1, 2, 3, 6, 7]
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://fiveable.me/key-terms/ap-euro/absolutism
[2] https://thisisrationalism.com/rationalism-in-ethics/
[3] https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-moral-absolutism/
[4] https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-rationalism-definition-philosophy.html
[6] wikipedia/en/Moral_absolutism
[7] https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2021/01/08/from-relativism-to-absolutism/