Do we have to need laws for the existence of morality or can our feelings govern our actions in terms of rightness and wrongness? There are two contrary views about morality, absolutism and relativism. On the one hand, absolutism asserts that morality should depend on fixity in terms of laws and applications. On the other hand, relativism depends on changeability and flexibility. As stated in text “Absolute Morality”, “Relativism depends on feelings to determine what one ought to do. Absolutism relies on overarching moral principles that all people recognize, natural law, conscience, the Golden rule if you will.” Although there are some arguments against absolutism such as evolution, tolerance, changing situations and guilt; absolutism does not have any contradiction like relativism and it is the best way to explain morality in terms of right and wrong.
Firstly, relativism has some counter arguments against absolutism. According to relativism, different cultures have different values (Absolute Morality, p1). Therefore, morals can not be universally and they change from culture to culture. Although mores and morals seem to have same meaning, morals are specific instances of morals (Absolute morality, p1). In other words, morals have more general views than mores’ such as murder is wrong. As placed in “Absolute Morality”, “And although many and through them we can not suffer. The Human resources can nothing to d to prevent this because of the fact that the current system doesn’t work well. Another factor which include the workers are the working conditions which created by the TUPRAŞ “A.S” which cultures have different mores, they share a common morality.” Secondly, relativism claims that all views should be tolerated. However, bad acts can not be tolerated because they may cause serious problems in a society. In addition to this, absolutism tolerates people. According to “Absolute Morality”, “Absolutists can tolerate bad persons without tolerating bad...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document