Comparing Relativism And Absolutism

Moral absolutism is a moral view that certain actions are inherently right or wrong. Moral absolution, in more depth, is a belief that there are established standards against moral questions that can be judged and certain actions are considered right or wrong. Absolutism represents that ethics and morals come from within the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of God. Moral absolutists base their decision on “what is right” in the eyes of God and humanity.

Absolutists would have to condemn a mother who steals food for her starving children because in their eyes all stealing is wrong, whereas Relativists can say stealing is wrong usually but as the mother needed to feed her children, what she did was right and should therefore not be condemned.

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.

Foremost, it is important to understand the true nature of moral absolutism, as many misconceptions and lack of understanding about the viewpoint have led people towards relativism. William B. Irvine compares absolutism to mathematics, where right and wrong answers are absolute, and immoral actions are wrong regardless of cultural differences. (Irvine, 2000). In many cases,

Ethical relativist deny any objective moral values. Cultural relativism explains that in different times and in different places people act in different ways; they acquire different values and ideas of what is morally right and wrong. Moral relativism explains that there are no moral absolutes; everyone can do what they please and how they want whenever they like.

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

‘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.

Moral Relativism is against absolute right or wrong actions; instead it relates these actions to moral code of the agent performing the action or the agent judging the action. This distinction between whose frame of reference is used to evaluate an action leads to two main forms of Moral Relativism: Moral Agent Relativism and Moral Appraiser Relativism (Elstein, 2014).

The debate between moral absolutism and relativism is a topic that I have never dealt with before. First, my post will attempt to describe the tenets of each philosophy. Then, it will discuss which of the two perspective is more beneficial with guiding American society’s moral decision making. The morality debate consists of strong ideology from both ends of the philosophical spectrum, with both harkening back to ancient Grecian times. According to Mastin (2008), Plato and Aristotle were more proponent of Absolutism philosophy, while Sophists followed the relativism ideology (N.p.).

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 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.

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

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

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)

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