Explain the Differences Between Absolute and Relative Morality
n the differences between absolute and relative morality
Relativism and absolutism are two ethical theories that strongly differ in beliefs and opinions. A relativist person would believe that there are no absolute universal truths, truth is relative to the subject and can differ from person to person and society to society. Relativism considers the outcome of choices; a relativist will generally make decisions based on the likely outcome. On the other hand, an absolutist thinker believes that people should live their lives by a moral code; they believe that there are absolute universal truths that apply to all societies. Moral absolutism is the view that moral principles are objective, not subjective or relative to the culture or society. That there are moral principles that are universally true and do not depend on culture time or place. Key absolutist philosophers and scholars are; Thomas Aquinas, Pope Benedict, Plato and Immanuel Kant. Whilst some key relativist philosophers and scholars are, John Stuart Mill, Aristotle, Jeremy Bentham, Protagoras and Joseph Fletcher. The arguments proposed by these idealists are both contradictory of each other and supportive, they combine to give a detailed picture of the basic theories behind moral absolutism and relativism.
Normative ethical theories are mainly divided into two groups, teleological and deontological. A teleological theory maintains that moral judgments are based entirely on the effects produced by an action, what is right and wrong, good and bad depends on the end outcome of an action. The teleological theory relates directly to relativist morality as both make moral judgments depending on the situation and outcome. However, these groups can divide further. Inside relativist morality there is situation ethics, cultural relativism and subjectivism all of which slightly differ on opinions and beliefs. Situation ethics says, like the teleological theory that what is right and wrong is relative to the
Relativism and absolutism are two ethical theories that strongly differ in beliefs and opinions. A relativist person would believe that there are no absolute universal truths, truth is relative to the subject and can differ from person to person and society to society. Relativism considers the outcome of choices; a relativist will generally make decisions based on the likely outcome. On the other hand, an absolutist thinker believes that people should live their lives by a moral code; they believe that there are absolute universal truths that apply to all societies. Moral absolutism is the view that moral principles are objective, not subjective or relative to the culture or society. That there are moral principles that are universally true and do not depend on culture time or place. Key absolutist philosophers and scholars are; Thomas Aquinas, Pope Benedict, Plato and Immanuel Kant. Whilst some key relativist philosophers and scholars are, John Stuart Mill, Aristotle, Jeremy Bentham, Protagoras and Joseph Fletcher. The arguments proposed by these idealists are both contradictory of each other and supportive, they combine to give a detailed picture of the basic theories behind moral absolutism and relativism.
Normative ethical theories are mainly divided into two groups, teleological and deontological. A teleological theory maintains that moral judgments are based entirely on the effects produced by an action, what is right and wrong, good and bad depends on the end outcome of an action. The teleological theory relates directly to relativist morality as both make moral judgments depending on the situation and outcome. However, these groups can divide further. Inside relativist morality there is situation ethics, cultural relativism and subjectivism all of which slightly differ on opinions and beliefs. Situation ethics says, like the teleological theory that what is right and wrong is relative to the