Absolutism is a methodological principle of interpretation of the nature of morality that underlies some of the ethical theories. Moral principles, concepts of good and evil are interpreted by supporters of absolutism as the eternal and unchanging, absolute beginning (the laws of the universe, a priori truths or divine commandments) are not related to the conditions of social lives of people with their needs. ()
In contrast to the relativism, which is usually protested against the canonization of dogma and the prevailing moral, absolutism might be twofold. On the one hand, its supporters often opposed the relativity and conventionality of the dominant morality, its lack of integrity and political subordination to the interests of ruling groups. But on the other hand, such criticism of the dominant morality did not deny it in principle, but substantiate an idea of its permanence and universality. And relativism is the methodological principle of interpretation of the nature of morality, the underlying ethical theories. It is reflected in the fact that the moral concepts and ideas are considered to be very relative, variable and conditional. Moral principles, concepts of good and evil are different in different people, social groups and individuals, in some way connected with the interests, beliefs and inclinations of people. But in the end, relativism leads to subjectivism in the interpretation of moral concepts and judgments, to deny them any objective content. Ethical relativism very often expressed a desire among certain social groups to undermine or subvert the dominant form of morality, which was given absolute and dogmatic sense. In relativism was expressed the desire to debunk the absolute moral values, centuries-old traditions of the past. Its proponents believe that moral judgments have no objective content, and express only the subjective ideas of those who express them. Hence the conclusion that moral judgments is considered neither true nor false, and everyone has the right to adhere to those principles which he prefers, and any point of view of morality is equally justified.
As for the principle that “the end justifies the means”, it is a classic expression of utilitarian theory. It assumes that the end really justifies the means in cases where the good of a specific goal can be achieved only through a specific means of evil, and when the first is much higher than the second.
Ethical Absolutism Vs Ethical Relativism
Ethical Absolutism vs Ethical Relativism
W. T. Stace, a philosopher, in contrast to the view of the cultural relativist, "argues that one cannot conclude that all moral actions are relative". He talks about two moral theories, ethical absolutism and ethical relativism, and presents arguements for and against each. He groups ethical absolutists as the right wing, the conservative and the old fashioned, and the ethical relativists as the left wing, the up to date fellows, the revolutionaries.
Ethical absolutism is a simple and unwavering theory and that is that, "there is but one eternally true and valid moral code and that it applies with rigid impartiality to all men", and that it is "absolute and unvarying". The ethical absolutist does not proclaim his own moral code as the true or untrue one, nor does he commit to the credibility of his neighbors moral code, nor his ancestors, nor future generations. He will only commit to there being one morality applicable to all men in all times.
Ethical absolutism evolved from Christian theology, Christian monotheism, and that "God is the author of the moral law". Stace states that the revolt of the relativists against absolutism is based on the "decay of belief in the doctrines of orthodox religion". Today's skepticism takes away the support Christian monotheism gave to absolutism.
Ethical relativism put simply by Stace is a denial of ethical absolutism. There is no absolute moral code. The relativist believes, I think, as an example, that what a
Frenchman believes is right for him, is right for him, and at the same time may be wrong for his neighbor, the Spaniard, and that is acceptable. He believes there is no one absolute standard but that there are only local, transient, and variable standards.
One arguement in favor of relativism is based upon the actual existence of various moral standards within our world. Ruth Benedict's exploration of primitive cultures, where the development of localized social forms has remained intact and protected because of their isolation, shows us that morality is "culturally defined". She gives numerous examples of how what one culture considers morally acceptable behavior, another culture considers that same behavior as immoral and unacceptable, while each culture exists and survives on its own without any difficulty.
Stace goes on to say that the above arguement is a pretty weak one. Relativists can explain it by saying there is no one existent moral standard, and absolutists will say that there is one moral standard but these human beings are all ignorant of it.
Another arguement, and I like this one, "consists in alleging that no one has ever been able to discover upon what foundation an absolute morality could rest, or from what source a universally binding moral code could derive its authority".
I'm not quite sure I understand the arguements against relativism. Perhaps relativists in simplest of terms,
believe in, live and let live, but I don't think that is basic to human nature. We continually have to judge and compare. On the basis of ethical relativism, any judgements we make can have no meaning. "A comparison of moral standards implies the existance of a superior standard applicable to both". There can be no judgement as to what is best.
Lastly, Stace presents the arguement of how the relativist will explain what the moral standards actually are within a social community and whose opinion within that community will be represented. Whether it be the majority or the minority, Stace concludes the results could be disasterous.
This was a lot to absorb, and I had to read it several times through, and I'm still not quite sure about it. In regard to ethical absolutism, my feeling is one of disagreement. I'm not sure of any benefit in believing that a true and absolute moral law exists at some time or place, while having no knowledge of what that law actually is. Also, if one questions the existence of God, the position held by the ethical absolutist must also be questioned. My first impression upon the ethical relativist's position was a favorable one. It sounded ideal. The relativist believes that morals are culturally defined, and that what is moral in one culture is the
View Full Essay
Related TopicsMeta-ethicsRelativismSocial philosophyEthicsMoral relativismPostmodernismMoral absolutismCultural relativismMoralityWalter Terence StaceEthical naturalism
Copyright © 2018Free Essay .com. All Rights Reserved.