Arguments Against Absolute Rule

Imagine a situation in the early 1940s Europe where a family is hiding some Jews in their house from the Nazi government. The family has two options – be honest with the government and hand the Jews to their awful fate or risk lying to the government to save the Jews’ lives. In both these options, the family would follow one generally accepted absolute rule but break another generally accepted absolute rule; the absolute rules are “do not lie” and “do not let an innocent die”. I believe most people today would support me say it is moral for the family to take the latter option even if it means not following an absolute rule – do not lie. My point is many situations can arise where two conflicting moral absolutes collide. In this case, I believe

that not following a moral absolute rule wasn’t immoral and, in many cases, there could be controversies arising from both sides resulting in a moral dilemma.
The above scenario doesn’t necessarily support relativism; it only showed the necessity to consider the individuals involved, the situation, the place, and the time when two conflicting absolute rules collided. Relativism says that all values should consider the individual, situation, place, and time and there should be no absolute rules. I agree with critics of relativism that relativism brings complications when there are no guidelines for all on how they ought to behave.
There are controversies on both absolutism and relativism.

So, I don’t know if it is better for everyone to ought to follow absolute ethical principles or all ethical principles to be relatively conditioned.
I believe in both fate and free will. I believe that our free will is limited by our fate. For example, a person might be able to run faster than he can run today, maybe exceeding expectations of many people if he trains properly. But no matter how much he trains, I doubt he’ll be able to run faster than a cheetah in a 100m race because science won’t let his body to run faster than a cheetah. It’s not in a fate of a human to outrun a cheetah in a 100m race.
In the article “Michael Phelps: The 'natural' transhuman athlete,” there are lists of how Michael Phelps has the perfect human body that allows him to be the most decorated swimmer of all time (George); most of the list looks like they were the result of good genes. A swimmer might work as hard or even harder than him but might not be able to outswim him because Michael Phelps was born with a right set of genes that allows his body to swim faster. But I can surely say that I wouldn’t have heard his name (Phelps is the only professional swimmer I know) if he hadn’t worked as hard as he had, and he hadn’t got the opportunities he got. It was his free will to work hard to become the superstar we know

today.
Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers: The Story of Success is filled with how fate and free will shaped the success of various people. Most of the stories in his book have one thing in common – the successful people had some competitive advantage thanks to their fate, but they worked their butt off (Malcolm says at least 10,000 hours) to achieve their world-class expertise (Gladwell).
References
1. George. (2008, August 14). Michael Phelps: The 'natural' transhuman athlete. Retrieved May 23, 2018, from http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2008/08/michael-phelps-natural- transhuman.html
2. Gladwell, M. (2013). Outliers: The story of success. New York, NY: Back Bay Books.