Moral Absolutism

Over the last several decades, long established taboo, including the right to abortion, the right to death, and LGBTQIA+ rights have become much more acceptable throughout the United States. Consequently, it seems like basic moral norms are up to the interpretation of current and societal ideals. Moral relativism is the belief that the concepts of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ exist only by comparison to a society’s moral code. It is an enticing moral theory in a world where so little seems absolute. Paul Boghossian, author of “The Maze of Moral Relativism” too believes that this idea of relativism is gaining popularity and importance in contemporary culture. However, he not only believes that moral relativism is not true, but an illogical or ‘incoherent’ moral theory. Moral relativism, he claims, cannot exist because there is no middle ground between ‘moral absolutism,’ the idea that moral facts are true across all cultures and time, and ‘moral nihilism,’ the rejection of all morality as people understand it, including the ideas of ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ Boghossian’s argument is able to logically destroy moral relativism, leaving little option other than to accept that absolute morality exists somewhere.

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.

Many rulers used absolutism in their countries. They believed rulers should have complete control over the country. Prince Machiavelli believed the best way to rule was to be feared and thought that the only way people would listen to him was if he was mean and scary. He thought if he was nice and loved then they would not fear him and end up taking advantage of him. (doc1) King James also believed absolutism was the way to go. He believed in divine right and that it was the only way to keep the country

James Rachels claims that morality is absolute. In his article Mortality is Not Relative, he discusses the fallacies of Cultural Relativism as well as the Cultural Differences Argument. Rachels believes that all cultures have some values in common and that there is way less disagreement between them than it seems. He brings up the example of the Eskimo’s and how they choose to kill the infants that they cannot take care of, “The Eskimo’s values are not all that different from our values. It is only that life forces upon them choices that we do not have to make” (Rachels). Another example of this would be how in some cultures it is wrong to eat cows because they believe that the souls of their ancestors and deceased are reincarnated into the cow. In our culture we would not eat our grandparents either, the only difference is we do not believe that they become cows, thus we would have no problem eating cows. “Now do we want to say that their values are different than ours? No, the difference lies elsewhere. The difference is in our belief systems, not in our values” (Rachels).

"Moral Objectivism: The view that what is right or wrong doesn"t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts ' are like 'physical ' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are. Objectivist theories tend to come in two sorts:"(1)

The Age of Absolutism was period of time throughout the world when rulers used different measures to maintain and justify their absolute power. Absolute leaders used the ideology of Absolutism that stresses a strong central government, a strong military, and mercantilism. Mercantilism said to have more exports that your empire imports. This idea of mercantilism allowed absolute rulers to build a strong economy to fund their wars and campaigns. Absolute leaders maintained and justified their power in multiple ways, such as religiously,politically, socially, and militarily.

Absolutism pertains to an absolutist state, where all power, or sovereignty is made in the ruler. These rulers claimed to have divine right, meaning they ruled by the grace of God and were responsible only to God. However, these absolute monarchs respected the basic laws of the land. They controlled interest groups within their territories and created bureaucracies as well, in which the offices held public/state positions, directing the economy to the benefit of the king. Absolute monarchs also kept

The idea of absolutism is the sovereignty of kings seeking absolute control of the state

Now, some ( but not all) deontological theories are versions of ABSOLUTISM - i.e the

Our country began with the values and beliefs from our forefathers. We continue to follow those same values and beliefs, however, I believe we are adapting to other people or culture’s ways so we will not offend those individuals. I would like to believe in moral absolutism but I don’t know that I could follow it one hundred percent. This assignment really made myself think about what I felt was important and what decision I might choose if forced in a certain situation. After submitting my assignment, I saw a Facebook post from Presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson and it was as if he was in our classroom this last week discussing moral absolutism. He made me rethink this assignment all over again and question which direction I would or should

Newsstands proclaim it. Talk shows trumpet it. Scandal, murder, and deception! People share a common disdain for these evils, scorning those who commit the dirty deeds. Laws are upheld to prevent people from doing “bad” things, but how do people come to an agreement on what is truly wrong? Even as society moves away from traditional teachings and perspectives, many acts are still universally looked down upon. Throughout history, the majority of civilizations have held surprisingly similar moral ideals regarding acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Although moral relativists believe that morality is individually determined, there is, in fact, an objective moral standard that governs all humanity, because a sense of right and wrong is universal, transcends time and culture, and is evident in the majority of people.

        In conclusion, Thomas Hobbes established much of his views on absolutism.       Absolutism is a political theory holding that all power should be vested       in one ruler or other authority. Ironically, Hobbes did not believe in the       Divine Rights of Kings, even though of his strong royalist views.       Absolutism is founded on the idea that human society tends toward       self-destruction. So, in order to achieve order and harmony in society,       people must renounce all of

In the article Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Laws, Arthur A. Leff took an agnostic approach when determining what morality should be comprised of. He suggested that humans struggle with desiring to follow a predetermined and unchallengeable set of moral rules, while at the same time wanting the autonomy to create those rules.

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.