Absolutism Vs Relativism Research Paper

Abryl Navarro DBQ Essay During the 1500s and 1600s, Western Europe experienced a period of governments ruled by ab-solute monarchs. Absolute monarchies are forms of government in which the monarch has abso-lute power over the people. The absolutism was caused by religious and territorial conflicts which was crated fear and uncertainty. Rulers/ Kings abused their power of absolutism over their sub-jects.

Moral Absolutism is concerned with right and wrong behavior. The absolute is what controls whether the action or behavior is right or wrong. Therefore, from the position of moral absolute, some things are always right and some things are always wrong no matter how one try to rationalize them. Moral absolutism materializes from a theistic worldview. Ethical Absolutists can condemn practices such as the Nazi harassment of the Jews because Absolutist views give definite guidelines as to what is right and wrong.

The second chapter of the book covers three moral views – objectivism, relativism, and emotivism. Objectivism is the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone. For example, according to an objectivist moral view torturing people is not acceptable universally. The second moral view is relativism. There are two types of relativism: cultural relativism, which approves an action if it is morally right to one’s culture; and subjective relativism – the view that an action is right if one approves of it (Vaughan 20). For example, some cultures support the sex-selective apportion, because female babies are not encouraged (Sex-Selection). If a group of people believe it is right, then

     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.

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries absolutism became highly prevalent. Absolutism was a type of national monarchy in which the monarch had great power. Many absolute monarchs kept their countries embroiled in war, which led to a feeling of instability and uncertainty that led to a dependence on one strong central power. Monarchs also justified their immense power by referencing the concept of the Divine Right to Rule, which was the belief that God created the monarchy; the monarch was his representative on Earth and thus was only answerable to God himself. The belief that the monarch was appointed by God, the need for a sense of security during a time of uncertainty, and the efficiency that resulted from an absolute monarchy were all factors that led some to believe that absolute monarchies during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were

The 1600s and 1700s were times of change. The Reformation of the previous century had shaken the foundations of society in Europe, while the Age of Exploration had introduced Europe to lands, peoples, and resources that brought new wealth to individuals and countries. Building off of this wealth, monarchs in Europe began to centralize their power using methods of taxation and claims of divine right. These monarchs, including Louis XIV of France, Peter the Great of Russia, and James I of England, eventually created a governmental system, known as absolutism, that revolved entirely around themselves and their desires. Because of their claims to such extreme power, absolutism had wide reaching effects on many parts of their countries. The effects of absolutism were the Nobles got treated like servants, the king's power increased a lot, and the military improved.

Being the two most prevalent governments during the 17th and 18th century, absolutism and constitutionalism were similar because in both governments the people gave up their sovereignty to a person or group of people, and both governments were made to protect the people; however, they are different because the power distribution between the people and government, the limits on said power, and the right for people to revolt were completely different.

During 1650-1750, a new political system known as absolutism emerged and became popular amongst many countries in central and Eastern Europe. Absolutism is a political system in which a divine-right monarch enjoys absolute power over all affairs of state. Supposedly, the “divine-right monarch” receives his power directly from God, meaning that he is only responsible to God and that no one can question his authority. In the 1600’s, taxes and famine began to rise in many European states, which resulted in dangerous and uncontrolled riots. Many countries began to adopt absolutism as a political system that could be a solution to these issues. As absolutism became a solution to these issues and gained popularity in France, Prussia, and Russia,

Absolutism started in the seventeenth century. The absolute monarchs main goal was to control every aspect of society. Usually the absolute monarchs ruled without any limitations to their authority. The most effective form of government in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is absolutism because men are selfish, the kings and princes were chosen by god, and the king has certain rights that no other person has.

To summarize a little about ethical relativism it is based on what the person or society would believe to be morally correct without any influence from outsiders, ethical objectivism is mainly based on facts and sound reasoning that even if we weren’t here to witness it, it would still happen. Ethical objectivism is just plain simple facts, for instance if a tree fell in the woods even though we aren’t there, it would still make a crashing sound as it fell to the forest bed.

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.

Moral absolutism is an ethical theory which believes that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are either right or wrong. Moral absolutists might, for example, judge slavery, war, dictatorship, the death penalty, or child abuse to be absolutely immoral regardless of the situations or beliefs of a culture that engages in these practices. Moral absolutism adopts the theory that certain actions are moral or immoral regardless of the circumstances in which they occur.

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.

In the last part of the course, we studied different forms of relativism and how they can be applied to morality. Relativism is in contrast to the universal laws that we studied when we were studying Kant’s Groundwork earlier in the semester. Instead, relativism makes the claim that there are no universal laws that can be applied to morality because every point of view is equally valid and therefore nothing can be said to be morally right or wrong. What we perceive to be right or wrong is based on our own perception and is shaped by our cultural upbringing (Drogalis, Lecture, March 31). In this paper I intend on describing the three kinds of relativism and demonstrating how they can be applied in a real world context. I will then focus on normative relativism in particular and describe two arguments in support of normative relativism as well as three arguments in opposition to normative relativism. I will wrap up the paper by summarizing why I believe normative relativism seems to be incorrect when applied to morally complex circumstances.