Absolutism Vs Relativism Essay

Moral Relativism is classified under any positions concerning the differences in moral judgments between people and the culture. Moral relativism is the position that ethical or moral propositions make claims regarding cultural or personal circumstances. Moral Relativism affirms relative form of validation of moral statements but doesn’t deny them. Moral relativist typically view the ethical standards of right or wrong are culturally based and are issued to a person's individual decision. Instead of making their decision on “what is right,” decisions are based on self-interest. This procedure has a negative impact on behavior and will affected the way we treat others.

Moral Relativism is defined as the belief that conflicting moral beliefs are true. This carries the impression that what you respect as a right behavior may be a right conduct for you, but not for me. Moral Relativism is an attempt to

Pope Benedict once said, “We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.” When discussing the idea of Moral Relativism there are conflicting arguments as to if it is true in society or not. As much as Americans wish to ignore it, and although it has negative as well as positive effects, moral relativism is apparent all over the world. Moral Relativism is true and relevant today through individuals and cultures.

Absolutism and Relativism are two different sets of thinking and belief when faced with a moral dilemma or any situation involving morality in the world. The absolutist point of view is the idea that every moral dilemma has one true correct solution or answer and only one. For Absolutists, their answer is right so the will fight and disagree with anyone who opposes them. While Relativists believe morals and morality are more of a private affair where no one but the person who the situation is dealing with can make the decision on what is deemed moral and unmoral. Relativists also believe there are no moral rules that apply to all people and cultures. They believe someone or a culture should be able to complete any action they believe is moral.

In philosophy there are many theories that philosophers argue, James Rachels argues the main points of moral relativism, where he describes the differences within cultures. Philosophers attempt to prove their theories to be true, but it can be complicated because if someone proves one premise false of your argument then the entire argument is invalid. There are different types of relativisms that favor moral relativism, such as, personal belief relativism, societal belief relativism, and then there is the cultural beliefs argument. All of these topics of relativism fall into the same category as moral relativism, meaning they all have the same general statement. Which is one cannot declare what is morally right or morally wrong. Moral relativism is the umbrella term and the others are points that can affect it. Moral Relativism claims that there is no objective truth concerning morality, therefore no one can draw a line between what is right or wrong.

     Absolutism became the primary form of government for many Europeans in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It appealed to so many for reasons the same as other governments. “Absolutists contended that social and political harmony would result when subjects obeyed their divinely sanctioned rulers in all aspects“ (Text 594). Absolutists rulers felt God gave them their ability to teach the masses the proper ways to live.

“Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.” (Westacott, 2017) Moral relativism is a belief and worldview that states that the individual is the source of what is real and true and that there is no absolute truth in the world. Meaning no religion or way of life is absolutely right and can dictate what is morally sound behavior. Essentially this removes responsibility from ourselves to do what is morally right and allows us to act in a way that satisfies ourselves or meets what our own view of what is morally right says.

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no absolute moral standard that is applicable to any person at any place at any given time. It suggests that there are situations in which certain behavior that would normally be considered “wrong” can actually be considered “right”. Moral relativism has played an increasingly significant role in today’s society, particularly regarding the differences between the countries of the world. This essay will summarize and explain both arguments in favor of and against moral relativism. Despite what many relativists believe, the arguments against are not only stronger, but also more accurate.

Two of the moral theories are relativism and absolutism, but what does this mean? Relativism is define by Wilkins are in short anti-legalist and anti absolutist (85). Relativism and absolutism are a dispute over the moral principles in the world. It is not that they disagree with what about is right and wrong or the moral principles behind them. It is that they are however against how principles should be held. They are in complete contrast to one another, even though their own right can justify both.

From a relativist's perspective, moral values are only applicable within certain cultures and societies. Something that may be viewed as morally correct in the United States could be unethical in Zimbabwe and vice versa. For example, in Somalia, it is acceptable, or moral for a family to kill a female family member if she is raped, while here in the United States the murder of a family member is viewed as extremely unethical and cruel. A more simplistic example of this is the fact that it is not unethical in American culture to consume beef, while in India it is viewed as unethical. The reason for this is because of the diverse cultures and their own set of moral standards. This theory states that there are many values and ideas that can be considered morally correct while disagreeing with one another. However, there are also few downsides to this theory. Relativism may lead to immorality because of opposing perspectives and cultures. Just because one culture views something as good or bad, right or wrong, does not mean this is true. This theory is based off of personal preferences and values, which can lead to conflict and clashing of values. Relativism also does a poor job of establishing an absolute set of ethics, and does not take into consideration that the values and norms of a society can change over time.

Different people may have different moralities as reflected in the way they act and the ways they react to the actions of others. However, there is no objective way to show that one of these moralities is a legitimate one. An explanation of what a morality is and what it is to have a said morals might resemble an explanation of what a language is and what it is to use certain words of that language. However, moral relativism is not an acceptable claim about how to understand moral judgments of other

During the pre-Enlightenment period, France and England went through very dramatic and very different government change. At the beginning of this time period, England had achieved relative stability, due largely in part to Elizabeth I long and successful reign. On the other hand, France had been subjected to numerous civil and religious wars, therefore leading to instability. French absolutism was largely a result of these crises and tragedies, with the country recognizing the need for a strong, powerful leader, which they found during the long and successful reign of Louis XIV. In England however, many problems arose due to a series of short and incapable rulers, beginning with James I and ending with James II.

Different culture has many different moral values. Universali we don't agree what is wrong or wrong, each individual is right to have moral value. No statement can be considered absolutely wrong and right. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it." which is right for you but not for me. For example, I and my friend went to buy a t-shirt. I tried the shirt and I did not like the shirt so I went back and put the shirt back in the same shelf that I took it from because I believe this

A discussion of moral theories must begin with a discussion of the two extremes of ethical thinking, absolutism and relativism. Moral Absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards where moral questions are judged and can be deemed right or wrong, regardless of the context. Steadfast laws of the universe, God, nature itself are the forces that deem an action right or wrong. A person’s actions rather than morals and motivations are important in an Absolutism proposition. Moral Relativism states, that the moral propositions are based on Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the

Ethical relativism and ethical absolutism are two differing theories on how we ought to or ought not to decide on right from wrong. We question and evaluate morality in the terms of right and wrong constantly throughout life. The moral values that we decide to indoctrinate into our everyday lives are strongly motivated by cultural constraints in the eyes of some, to include anthropologist Dr. Ruth Benedict. Ethical relativism is defined as moral values being strongly dependent on time, place, and standards of a given culture. A contrasting theory to relativism is absolutism. The concept of a single, unwavering moral code used by all humans universally is absolutism. Dr. Christina Hoff-Sommers is an American philosopher who supports the idea of basic moral values and virtues based on absolutism. As humans we all have a duty to treat each other with a baseline of morality, while striving to improve character within our cultural environments.