...Relativism and Absolutism Absolutism and relativism are two extreme ethical approaches to reality. While they are both valid and supported by facts, they are very contrasting in their views. Values are what a person cares about and thinks is worthwhile. For example, values can include life, love, religious faith, freedom, relationships,health, justice, education, family and many other things. Usually these values are what provides the passion in a person's life, and gives them hope and a reason for being. A person might go to any lengths to protect what they feel is right and to preserve these values. Values can be divided up into two subcategories absolute and relative. Absolute values deal with conventional ethics. In absolutism, everything is certain. Relativism, on the other hand, is more subjective. Relativism and absolutism are only two of the many ethical viewpoints studied by ethicists today. Pope Benedict XVI brought up many issues revolving around these two viewpoints during his time as Pope. He never strictly used the term "relativism" but he did "fault modern people for missing the transcendent meaning of love and instead caring for one another just because we feel like it". The ideas behind relativism may be misleading or confusing to some, but are essential to any worldview, including the pope's. Pope Benedict worries that a person's individual autonomy has been lifted and valued above moral absolutes. Most people understand that lying is wrong and considered...
Words: 1323 - Pages: 6
...Explain absolute and relative approaches to ethics Absolutism and relativism approach ethics in two very different ways. Absolutists believe that some things are either right or wrong and there is a rule that is true in all situations, this is a lot easier to apply, whereas, relativists believe it’s a judgement that depends on the circumstances where there’s no universal right or wrong. The theory of ethical relativism holds that there are no moral rules, all principles and values depend on a particular culture or age. There is no such thing as right or wrong what’s right to someone could be wrong to someone else. An action could be bad but in itself however the response could be right, for example if your dad is in a burning building with someone who can cure cancer who would you save? That one person who means the world to you? Or the majority of the population? This mean that there is no objective basis meaning there is no truth. Relativism originated from the western ethical thinking to the city of ancient Greece. At the time of 18th BCE, being good meant being a hero and doing heroic things and being a strong, courageous person. This idea started to develop and ethical theories of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle started to become accepted as they looked at the ideas of character and virtue. Things began to change in the 16th century BCE and there was no moral certainty. Due to the exploration of different cultures such as other civilisations with different ideas,...
Words: 555 - Pages: 3
...Explain the difference between moral absolutism and relativism (25) There are two different ways in distinguishing whether something is right or wrong within ethics. Absolutism is a deontological theory, which determines whether an action is intrinsically right or wrong. Whereas relativism is a teleological theory, which determines whether an action is right or wrong based on the outcomes of the action, on its consequences, this is linked with situation ethics and consequentialism. They are two different ways in approaching ethics. Absolutism is a moral command that is objectively and universally right or wrong for all people, in all times, places and cultures. It can be said to be deontological and so something is either right or wrong intrinsically (in itself) and therefore consequences have no bearing. Whereas, relativism is a subjective theory and believe that all truth is relative and dependent upon the values of an individual or society or even situation. Relativism is a teleological approach and therefore takes into account the consequences of a situation. Therefore there are many differences between moral absolutism and relativism. An example of absolutism would be the Ten Commandments, that Natural Law portrays, which are absolute, ‘do not murder’, as this is a law that applies to everyone. Therefore an absolutist would say that it is always wrong to murder in every, and any situation. In contrast, a relativist might argue that in some situations, given the outcome...
Words: 656 - Pages: 3
...Jonathan Temporal UNSW ASB Student number 3413771 Xerox’s actions are reminiscent of ethical relativism. As derived from Donaldson’s (1996) article, ethical relativism holds that no single code of ethics is superior than others, and so there is no absolute right and wrong (Donaldson, 1996). Ethical absolutism holds that regardless of one’s location or environment, there is only one correct set of ethical principles (Donaldson, 1996). As a business, Xerox’s main concern is making a profit. As long as it profits, it doesn’t see anything unethical in selling machines with capabilities greater than what customers actually need. Even if Xerox did see this as not being completely ethical, it compensates for this by doing a good deed – donating a percentage of its profits to charity. Hence, Xerox’s standards of what is ethical behaviour is very flexible and changes depending on its other actions. Donaldson (1996, p. 7) enumerates three core values that define “minimum ethical standards for all companies”. Evaluated against these core values, I believe Xerox’s actions are not unethical. These actions do not physically harm the customers, nor do they deny them of basic human values (Donaldson 1996). For every sale made, Xerox donates to charity. To me, this reciprocity satisfies the “Golden Rule” (Donaldson 1996, p. 7). Finally, Xerox did not force or deceive customers into buying their more expensive machines. Xerox can be said to have encouraged customers to “up-size”...
Words: 259 - Pages: 2
...The question of whether ethical relativism or ethical absolutism is right has been the subject of much debate, and perhaps may never be answered for certain. It is certain, however, that at the present time, ethical relativism is in general accepted as the standard. Although I realize that given the fact that the best of philosophers have failed to give solid arguments for either ethical relativism or ethical absolutism will most likely be unable as well, however that is not my goal. Rather my purpose is simply to make us question the ethical relativism to which we have become so accustomed, and to demonstrate some reasons why ethical absolutism may be correct. We all know that people, in general, treat ethics as being subjective. Does that, however, make that right, just, and ethical? To put it simply, the answer is: no. This is obvious given the common example, "if all the other kids were jumping off a cliff, would you do it too." The masses are not always right. So now the thought in all your minds is "come on - go ahead! Prove us wrong." I'm not trying to prove anything, however I will hopefully give you enough information to make you question what is right, and if I do, then I've accomplished my goals. Lets begin with the basics. "What are absolute ethics?" Ethical Absolutism, is undeviating moral discipline. Nothing is relative; a crime is a crime, regardless of circumstances. For a quick demonstration of ethical relativism let us use the example of murder. Is it ok...
Words: 2114 - Pages: 9
...Moral relativism vs Moral absolutism Moral Relativism Moral relativism is the insight that there are no obvious ethical truths and that moral facts are only relative to a given individual. According to this theory what is morally good for one person or culture might be morally bad for another, and vice versa: there are no moral absolutes. Moral relativism holds that ethical truths are of this latter kind. According to moral relativism, ethical truths are subjective rather than objective. This means that whether lying is wrong, for example, can vary from person to person or from culture to culture. It may be that for some people, or in some cultures, it is wrong, but that for other people, or in other cultures it isn‘t. In one mild form, moral relativism can seem obvious. Of course different people have different moral obligations: I have a duty to pay my credit card bill; you do not. Each of us is in different circumstances, and those circumstances affect what we ought and ought not to do. Morality is therefore relative to circumstances. Moral truths are relative to people or groups of people. Moral relativism holds that two different people in identical circumstances can, for no other reason than that they are different people, have different obligations. This is a much stronger claim than that morality is relative to circumstances. Moral absolutism Moral absolutism is the ethical theory which believes that there are always absolute rules of which moral questions can be judged...
Words: 506 - Pages: 3
...“Moral relativism is a better system than moral absolutism” Moral relativism refers to the normative ethical system which rejects the idea of absolutes and instead believes that “man is the measure of all things”- which was skilfully expressed by Ruth Benedict. The moral relative system surpasses that of moral absolutism and this will be justified throughout this essay. Moral relativist systems exceed moral absolutist systems due to diversity. The system explains the different values that people hold and encourages diverse cultural expressions due to there being no rigidity or fixe ethical code. This allows for a better system as it signifies freedom of expression and people being able to share their opinions with each other, without there being a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. This is due to the system prohibiting dominant cultures from enforcing itself over others simply because of a disparity of opinions. This means that all cultures are valued by a relativist as there is no objective knowledge that one must accept, they instead must accept all actions as equally valid in the society in which they take place. This would then make is difficult for a relativist to criticise religious acts such as Muslim women wearing a hijab in England , which is beneficial to society due to the lack of discrimination and ignorance. In conjunction with diversity, moral relativism is a better system than moral absolutism due to circumstantial aspects. Moral absolutism does not take into account the...
Words: 633 - Pages: 3
...Moral absolutism is related to human rights and stands against social topics such as war, sexism, rape to be absolutely and undoubtly immoral, regardless of religious beliefs that may believe these practices are acceptable depending on a situation. In a nutshell, moral absolutism follows the belief that there are set universal principles that are distinctively moral or immoral no matter what. For example, females being paid less than men due to their gender can be considered acceptable in some societies; from a absolute point of view, individuals should be treated equally regardless of their gender, age and religion. Moral absolutism has been shaped by human rights. After all, every indivudal is human, therefore the laws of humanity and its nature should be treated fairly. Moral absolutism can be explained through several perspectives such as rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism states that an action can be moral, just only if it leads to happiness for all individuals (Schefczyk, 2009, Chapter 5, para. 8) Rule utilitarianism relates to absolutism in the sense that the moral absolute principles which individuals abide by benefit them in terms of happiness. Universal absolute principles such as treating others the way you wish to be treated, can be shown through rule utilitarianism; by treating another individual the way you would like to be treated ultimately leads to greater happiness for all people. As a whole, moral absolutism along with rule utilitarianism creates a set...
Words: 659 - Pages: 3
...Moral absolutism is the ethical belief that there are rules that are absolute and should be followed under all circumstances. Moral absolutist do not take into consideration the context of the act, as having the absolute rules allows them to judge the moral question fairly. Moral absolutism is a deontological belief. This means that there a set rules and one action must either be intrinsically right or wrong. Intrinsically wrong means there is no information or circumstances that can be provided to a wrong doing to make it right at all. Killing/ murder/ euthanasia is an example of something that is intrinsically wrong. Even if the person where slowly dying and were in large amounts of pain and asked you to help them by stopping they’re suffering, even done with the right intent to do something good, it is intrinsically wrong. Intrinsically wrong is the opposing of intrinsically wrong. In the eyes of a theist, absolute laws come from God. For Christians, the Ten Commandments are an example of absolutes. They believe that these are the laws that god told us to follow and so are absolute. The ten commandments reads ‘do not steal’, so for a Christian following the 10 commandments, stealing will always be wrong, even if it were the only option and you had to do so in order for you and a loved one to survive. Christians also follow a believed hierarchy of absolutes. There is a duty of god, then the duty to others and lastly the duty to property. ...
Words: 753 - Pages: 4
...1. Start with main features of absolutism: • Moral command / prohibition that is true for all time, in all places & cultures, in all situations. • Objective, deontological, universally applicable – Kant • Universalisability. • LOUIS POJMAN – only one rule needs to be absolute. • Exist independently of human experience. • Motives, consequences, mitigating circumstances don’t count. • E.g. rape, torture and murder are always wrong, intrinsically wrong, because break a moral rule. • Illogical, if torture is morally acceptable in one country, but unacceptable over the border. • Plato – moral absolutes like goodness and justice exist, forms are the true reality. • 3 main types of absolutism: human rights, Platonic idealism, religious. a. PLATO – theory of forms, concepts that are eternally constant, unchangeable. Reducible to one, single unalterable ideal, the Form of the Good. b. RELIGIOUS ABSOLUTISM – Natural Law, Divine Command Theory, Bible commandments. c. HUMAN RIGHTS – JACK DONNELLY: humans have certain unchallengeable rights, e.g. protection by the state; JOHN FINNIS: right to have children, being free from threat of murder. Today human rights affect every moral decision. Primary and secondary rights: • CULTURAL ABSOLUTISM – ultimate moral principles do not change from culture to culture, e.g. value of human life, family. 2. Main features of relativism, pointing out differences with absolutism as you go. • Moral command / prohibition alter depending on time...
Words: 459 - Pages: 2
...approach to ethics is known as ‘deontological’. This has often been based on two different ethical theories Kantianism; the view that the only intrinsically good thing is a good will and utilitarianism; that the morally best action is the one that makes the most overall happiness. Religious views of ethics often come from an absolutist view. Moral absolutism may be understood in a strictly secular context, as in many forms of deontological moral rationalism. However, many religions have morally absolutist positions as well, regarding their system of morality as deriving from divine commands. Therefore, they regard such a moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable. Many secular philosophies also take a morally absolutist stance, arguing that absolute laws of morality are inherent in the nature of human beings, the nature of life in general, or the universe itself. For example, someone who believes absolutely in nonviolence considers it wrong to use violence even in self-defence. In the 18th century, German philosopher Immanuel Kant developed this theory of ethics. He was a prominent promoter of Moral Absolutism, and his formulation of the deontological theory of the Categorical Imperative was essentially absolutist in nature....
Words: 849 - Pages: 4
...Ruth Benedict (depicted on the right, above), a 20th-century anthropologist, articulates the thinking behind the widely held view of ethical relativism. Benedict writes, “Normality...is culturally defined,” and “the concept of the normal is properly a variant of the concept of [the] good” (Benedict [from“Anthropology and the Abnormal,]” qtd. in Rosenstand, p. 146*). So, in essence, what Benedict is saying is that what any culture or society deems to be good, right, or correct action and morally good, or at least morally appropriate, behavior will in fact be such with respect to that culture or society. This leaves the door open for a wide variety of ways of life, of ethical codes, of individual behavior to be acknowledged not only as acceptable, but also as morally good. By contrast, Christina Hoff Sommers (depicted on the left, above) argues that there are basic human virtues that are not relative to time, place, circumstance or situation. Sommers writes, “It is wrong to mistreat a child, to humiliate someone, to torment an animal. To think only of yourself, to steal, to lie, to break promises, And on the positive side: it is right to be considerate and respectful of others, to be charitable and generous.” (Sommers, qtd. in Rosenstand, p. 480*). You may want to read "Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man," an article written by Sommers published in the March/April, 2008 issue of The American, a publication of the American Enterprise Institute. You can link to this article by...
Words: 937 - Pages: 4
...oppose it?" My experience has been that people who advocate most loudly for ethical relativism are generally not open- minded. Indeed, in my years of existence, relativist people have been positively rabid in rejecting anything that challenges their views. They’re blocking the things or circumstances which seems to hinder their perspectives. I’ve watched some of these on TV – the live court hearings/trials that divulge different issues in our government which eventually invade the personal lives of those who were involved in such political issues. Perhaps we need to approach the issue more pragmatically. On point of view, I...
Words: 680 - Pages: 3
...having an open discussion or going over our homework problems, for instance, in one of my Accounting classes the instructor wants everybody to chime in and nobody does. It’s always the same 3 people answering all the homework questions. I also think this is rude. The instructor clearly states to everybody that wrong answers are fine, that is how we learn. Cell phones are another huge distraction in every class that I attend. Cell phones should be set on vibrate and only answered in case of an emergency by leaving the classroom quickly. Everybody should be respectful and refrain from texting during class. No games, social media, or picture taking during class as well, as these are all very distractive to other students and the teacher. Relativism is judging what is right or wrong in certain situations (Westacott, n.d.). One classroom may rely on the instructor to lecture more than in other classrooms. So in one case it may be ok to politely chime in to ask questions in a timely manner, such as in math, while in another class the next piece of information will explain the current issue. Utilitarianism is doing actions that produce the most amount of good (Mastin, 2008). By allowing the current speaker say what they want to say it allows for the discussion to flow and help fix any confusion that any student may be having during the lecture. There one another situation in my Accounting class where two students were...
Words: 497 - Pages: 2
...American Intercontinental University Unit 4 Individual Project 20 September 2014 Abstract Businesses immorality not only affected those employees but the lives of their families, as well as all those whom connected to the company. One will never know the extent of damage caused by immoral acts; the repercussions are too far reaching. In a business environment, a business should be more conscious of acting morally correct than any individual, because the number of live affected are incalculable. In a business environment, why should people be moral as individuals? Introduction Businesses should be morally responsible because the damage they can do is monumental. Businesses that do not act morally destroy lives; while these individual may not die their lives are irrevocably changed. For example, the collapse of a factory in Bangladesh in 2013 killed eleven-hundred people. This collapse was entirely preventable; had the owner not violated building codes and failed to respond appropriately to information that the building was not safe, the accident would not have happened. (Fortune, 2013) Furthermore, this businesses immorality not only affected those employees that died but the lives of their families, as well as all those whom witnessed the event. One will never know the extent of damage caused by immoral acts such as this one; the repercussions are too far reaching. In a business environment, a business should be more conscious of acting morally correct than...
Words: 1085 - Pages: 5
