Moral Absolutism Vs Relativism Essay

Moral philosophy is distinguished by two main branches – absolutism and relativism. Absolutist philosophers argue that certain conducts and rules are intrinsically right or wrong, and are true for all time, regardless of circumstance. This conflicts with the assertion by relativist philosophers that there are no universal principles that can be objectively deemed morally correct or incorrect; rather that everything is circumstantial and should be judged on the basis of its context.
Moral absolutism gives way to the system of deontological (duty-based) ethics, which proclaims that an action is right if it is in accordance with an inherent moral rule or principle, and that it is our moral obligation to act in this way. An example of deontological theory is Kantian ethics which states the existence of a categorical imperative in being an unconditional moral duty that abides to all situations, independent of any inclination or purpose. This opposes the ethical theory of act utilitarianism which seeks to decide a course of action on the basis that it has the tendency to bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest amount. Kant would argue that …show more content…
Firstly, John Stuart Mill argued that Bentham’s focus on striving towards ultimate happiness is “too complex and indefinite” to live by, and instead contends that morals are inherited through trial-and-error observations of the course of action that is generally best. More importantly, act utilitarianism does not rule out any type of action as being immoral; some acts are still fundamentally wrong even if they do bring about happiness. He allegorises the example of child abuse in support of this notion. Finally, it could be deemed that act utilitarianism fails to respect people’s moral integrity by specifying how an agent should think about moral decisions without giving way to personal commitments and

Show More

Related Documents: Moral Absolutism Vs Relativism Essay

Essay on katie s midterm for philosophy