Unqualified 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.

The theory of absolutism is when the people believed that one person should hold all the power of a country. An absolute monarch was when a king or a queen held all the power within their state’s boundaries. They believed that the monarchy was created by God and answered only to him.

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 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 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

absolutism a form of government in which the sovereign power or ultimate authority rested in the hands of a monarch who claimed to rule by divine right and was therefore responsible only to God.

Since Berthold beyond a doubt wrote this right after it occurred he would not have been aware of the papal election decree of 1059, therefore he would have considered Honorius II the real pope as elected by Henry IV. Therefore, when Berthold records the event he doesn’t regard Bishop Anselm as the real pope, accusing him of illegally taking control of the papacy. This account of the papal schism would therefore lean towards the favor of Henry IV. In Berthold’s second version of the account he changes his opinion, “Bishop Cadalus of Parma was elected pope by an act of simony, since many bribes were given to certain persons”. Berthold directly links the appointment of Cadalus by Henry IV to the act of simony. Simony was something not even mentioned

In regards to choosing which ethical system, Polston provides a detailed overview of which absolutism is the best to follow. Graded absolutism believes that there are real moral conflicts (Geisler, 2010, p. 115). Real moral conflicts for Christians are appearing daily and the most recent event concerning Kim Davis a country clerk who has refused to hand out same sex marriage certificates. For her actions a judge has ordered to be jailed by U.S. District Judge David Bunning. As Proverbs 18:22 (NIV) says, “He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the Lord.” For Davis, the issue came down to following civil law or adhering to God’s moral law. By adhering to the standards of graded absolutism then, anyone in Kim Davis’s

Enlightened absolutism is the idea that in a system rulers would govern by enlightenment principles by also maintaining their royal powers. These principles the natural rights like freedom of speech, religion, press, equality, and happiness while also nurturing arts, science, and education. I think this type of government could exist. However, I don't think it would be easy since everyone's opinions are very different and so no one is good enough to enforce and keep all these laws and ideas without trouble.

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.

Evolution is the succession of inherited traits from generations that develop over time. Similarly, moral relativism is the process of expanding a person’s morals and beliefs during their lifetime. However, instead of advancing over generations based on proceeding genes, moral relativism focuses on changing because of the environment around them, or rather the surrounding culture. Therefore, understanding right and wrong is subject to a person’s individual decision dictated by personal and situational circumstances. Christians who hold a biblical worldview believe that ethics are derived from the revelations of God demonstrated in the Bible. Although, this basis comes from the character and nature of God, not necessarily what Christians should do in specific

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.