Correspondence

Absolute versus Relative Values

Authors: Joseph K. Neumann, PhD, Kenneth E. Olive, MD, Arthur R. Ellis, PhD

Abstract

To the Editor:


The relationships of religious values to health continue to receive much attention. 1 Data indicate that such values affect diverse areas, including frequency of psychiatric disorders, incidence of cardiovascular disease, recovery from surgery, and treatment compliance. One classification of religious values is a relative versus absolute dichotomy. Relative systems, such as postmodernism, propose ethical values that may change and depend primarily on individualistic considerations, such as power or practicality. Absolute value systems, such as Orthodox Judaism and Christianity, however, ascribe to an unchanging source of truth and ethical values that does not change as a function of particular people or situations.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Koenig HG, McCullough ME, Larson DB: Handbook of Religion and Health. New York, Oxford University Press, 2001.
 
2. Neumann JK, Olive KE, McVeigh SD. Absolute versus relative values: Effects on medical decisions and personality of patients and physicians. South Med J 1999; 92: 871–876.
 
3. McCullough ME, Rachal KC, Sandage SJ, et al. Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: Part II—Theoretical elaboration and measurement. J Pers Soc Psychol 1998; 75: 1586–1603.
 
4. Ketterer MW, Huffman J, Lumley MA, et al. Five-year follow-up for adverse outcomes in males with at least minimally positive angiograms: Importance of “denial” in assessing psychosocial risk factors. J Psychosom Res 1998; 44: 241–250.