moral absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. Thus, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the actions. It holds that morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of God or some other fundamental source.
It is the opposite of Moral Relativism, the position that moral propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. It is related to, but not the same as, Moral Realism (the position that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of human opinion), and to Moral Universalism (the position that there is a universal ethic which applies to all people, regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality or other distinguishing feature).
The ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle believed in a kind of Absolutism or Universalism, opposing the Moral Relativism of the Sophists. Immanuel Kant was a prominent promoter of Moral Absolutism, and his formulation of the deontological theory of the Categorical Imperative was essentially absolutist in nature. Moral Absolutism has been favoured historically largely because it makes the creation of laws and the upholding of the judicial system much simpler, and manifested itself in outdated concepts such as the Divine Right of Kings.
The Essay on Moral absolutism
The choices we make in our everyday life all have to do with our ethics. In this paper the topic will discuss the similarities and differences between virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological ethics. In order to understand the similarities, and differences of virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological ethics we must first define them. Virtue theory is defined as a moral excellence. ...
Many religions have morally absolutist positions, and regard their system of morality as having been set by a deity, and therefore absolute, perfect and unchangeable. Many Christians regard Christian theology as teaching a hierarchy of moral absolutes known as graded absolutism, where in the case of a conflict between two absolutes, the duty to obey the higher one (God) exempts one from the duty to the lower ones (fellow humans or, still lower, property).
Divine Command Theory is an absolutist meta-ethical theory that an act is obligatory if (and only if) it is commanded by God (William of Ockham argued that if God had commanded murder, then murder would indeed have been morally obligatory).
Sometimes, Moral Absolutism can mean the more extreme position that actions are moral or immoral even regardless of the circumstances in which they occur (e.g. lying is always be immoral, even if done to promote some other good, such as to save a life).
In this form, it can be contrasted with Consequentialism (in which a morally right action is one that produces a good consequence or outcome, regardless of the intentions).
Criticisms of Moral Absolutism | Back to Top |
A primary criticism of Moral Absolutism regards how we come to know what the absolute morals are. For morals to be truly absolute, they would have to have a universally unquestioned source, interpretation and authority, which critics claim is an impossibility.
Another of the more obvious criticisms is the sheer diversity of moral opinions which exists between societies (and even within societies) in the world today, which suggests that there cannot be a single true morality.
A Consequentialist would argue that it cannot be right for a Moral Absolutist to be unprepared to kill one man in order to prevent the deaths of many others, although this would be a rather extreme and dogmatic example of Moral Absolutism.
2)
Moral absolutism is an ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them.
The Essay on Moral absolutism 2
When we speak of “Morality” we think of the difference between right and wrong, the difference between the good and the evil. We use morality to justify our actions and decisions. More often than not, people impose their morality on others and expect them to act in the way they find fit. They believe that the idea of right and wrong is universal. In her essay “On Morality”, Didion contradicts this ...
Saint Augustine, who was a famous early proponent of moral absolutism, said that it was not even permissible to tell a lie in order to prevent a great evil such as a murder. He said that by lying to a potential murderer about the whereabouts of his intended victim, we would be condemning ourselves to hell in order to extend someone’s stay on earth and perhaps save the potential murderer from hell. On this rather extreme view, moral absolutism is always justified. It has been noted that in later life, Augustine found practical reasons not to follow his own standards, but could always justify his actions without compromising his stated position.
Most people would find it difficult to justify moral absolutism. They would say that it is proper to tell a lie not only to avoid a possible murder, but even to avoid unnecessary grief for a bereaved person. It can be justified to assault a person contemplating a serious crime, even though that person is, as yet, innocent of any crime. On this view, moral absolutism is not justified.
