Comparing Relativism And Absolutism

Constitutionalism are Absolutism are very different; however, they both have the same concept on power, more specifically’ who should hold the power, and they both exist to protect the commonwealth. In constitutionalism and absolutism, the people relinquish their sovereignty to a person or group

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 and Utilitarianism are the two theories I chose to discuss. Moral relativism is basically the position a person takes on human values whether they think it’s right or wrong. Relativism is what people would consider a concept of a person’s view or opinion that does not necessarily have truth

Two main types of ethical relativism are cultural relativism and normative ethical relativism. Cultural relativism says that there are different cultures and they always have different ways of thinking behaving and learning from the generation before, and this can be seen in daily life just by how different countries do things like music, dress, and even politics. Normative ethical relativism says that there is no universal right or wrong in the universe instead it says that what is right or wrong is different from society to society and that there is no

The population of the United States continues to grow due to illegal immigrants entering the country. 95,000 foreigners enter the United States every day from all around the world (Martin, 2003). Even though so many enter every day, most of the people do not intend to stay, but rather are here for a limited time. However, of those 95,000 that enter, over one thousand are illegal immigrants who intend to enter and settle (Martin, 2003). They come here so that they can have a better life for themselves and for their families. Just think if one thousand want to stay, and that many come every day, the number is continuing to increase in huge numbers every year. With so many immigrants coming into the United States it will begin to wear down the environment and

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.

Andrew Carnegie’s “The Gospel of Wealth” and Samuel Gompers’ letter to Judge Peter Grosscup offer different opinions concerning the course that people of different economic standings should take in regards to power and social stature. However, both works mean to steer society in what seems to be opposite directions. Carnegie focuses more on how the wealthy in the society should take the seemingly philanthropic approach whereas Gompers’ offers a more organizational and structured point of view.

Relativist “is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.” (Slick, 2015) Moral relativism goes off a person’s moral principles, where principles and ethics are observed as valid in only limited situations. There are many forms of relativism which vary in their degree of disagreement; also known as truth relatives. (Slick, 2015)

There are many ethical theories that we have discussed so far. Utilitarianism and relativism are two of these theories. These two theories hold completely different beliefs.

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 theories are the rules and principles that determine right and wrong for any given situation’ according to Crane and Matten (2004:76). Its contribution is either relativists which is what is right or wrong relying on the moral norms of our society such as, our culture or absolutists which is deciding what is right or wrong regarding the act, for instance, murder. However, absolutists are divided into Consequentialists (Teleological) which consists of Utilitarianism and ethical egoism and the Non-consequential (Deontological) which consists of divine command theories, Kant’s ethics of duty, virtue ethics, justice approach and the rights approach.

When we take a look a human nature it displays no type of law and the consequences have no bearing due to each person or society may interpret each consequence differently. Society’s ethics evolve over time and change it to fit circumstances. You may have a person that feels or think it is morally wrong to eat meat but, also believe it is unethical for a government to force other to be vegetarian. What about that parent or parents that may agree with the law that prohibits underage drinking but, will allow their child to drink at family functions. Several facts of ethical relativism, which states that universal truth is impossible to determine but, at the same tome admits that ethical behaviors does

In my research, I have found varying definitions of moral relativism, but each is based on the philosophy that morals are culturally based and are subject to individual choice. Moral relativism is the perspective that ethical and moral standards are culturally based, and therefore subject to personal, individual choice (moral-relativism.com, 2016, N.p.). In Addition, Schumacher (2008) noted, with moral relativism there are no global, absolute laws that applies to all people...noting that individual moral practices dictate one's moral position (N.p.). In contrast, moral absolutism is the belief that rules and standards

A Relativist is more tolerant because he or she does not impinge upon people an absolute standard of right and wrong by which to compare and contrast morally contradictory cultural values. A Universalist proposes values that are based on his or her own set of values. This can promote intolerance because it provides a basis to make moral judgments between cultures. This is also an example of ethnocentrism, or judging another culture by the values of one’s own culture. Essentially, moral rightness and wrongness are expressions of conventions and norms that vary between cultures. There is no objective or moral truth because actions cannot be judged in a non-culturally contextual perspective.

My professional and personal goal is to achieve a bachelor degree in healthcare. Being the best person I can be, and setting goals that I can achieve is my motivation. Setting an example for my daughter to dream big, set high goals, and hard work will pay off in the end. I will also be the first person in my immediate family to receive a degree. Growing up getting an education beyond high school wasn’t really pushed or encourage by my parents. Long-term this degree will set me up for a professional career that I can retire in. Also I can be an example to young adults to set a goal and stick to it no matter what. With faith and perseverance you can achieve anything you set your mind to do. I want to be able to support my family better, and be a help to society. In my previous educational endeavors, which was 10 years ago. I became unfocused on my goals. I got married while in college and started a fulltime job. I am still married today to my husband of 11 years now, and we have a 5year old daughter. I’m in a different place in my life right now. I have been working for a pharmaceutical company for the past 9 years. I want to transition to a healthcare career. I am now determined to do better, and get things done. The job I work now I’m given assignments that have to be completed by a deadline.