Moral Absolutism vs Moral Relativism?

Can someone please explain the difference between Moral Absolutism and Moral Relativism?

10 Answers

  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Moral Absolutism is considered, in the religious world to be one of divine law. That is there are commandments of the Lord, and thou shalt follow them or be eternally punished.

    In the old Jewish law there were punishments for not obeying the injunctions of Deuteronomy; and there were blessings for following the positive commands.

    In modern parlance, today, there is the Catholic Church and Christianity and Islam which have certain Moral Absolutes which MUST be followed or else.

    So in that sense of the word, it is a command to obey. No choice, no justification, no way out.

    Moral Relativism, is highly dependent. This is the more pragmatic approach, one followed even within the major religions.

    The reason is quite simple logic actually. Its simply that though people may do wrong, they may also be forgiven. Therefore, though their reasons for doing what they do are flawed, that is there is a defense such as mistake, there is also a justification for not punishing a moral aberration. That is excuse through forgiveness.

    Moral Relativism in its extreme form is the justification of murder "in the name of God". Therefore, Moral Absolutism is an utopian ideal, that is impossible to reach.

    Moral Relativism is pragmatic, and can be used to justify just about anything.

  • 4 years ago

    "Historically, Christians of most flavors, followed a code that would say that there are moral absolutes. " There have never been moral absolutes. Those same Christians you claim existed were also the same ones who sold items that were supposed to forgive sins. There is no question that up until a brain is formed that the child is nothing more than a clump of cells. Otherwise you are saying you also shouldn't kill skin cells by sunbathing. There is no homosexual agenda, stop lying. No one is saying divorce is good. Everything you claim is false. edit: Then there are also examples in the bible itself that indicate that ripping the unborn child from the mother is ok, completely negating your entire argument that it is bad. Edit2: And in the bible where it clearly states life does not begin until breath is taken? Moral relativism. So you seriously don't understand the difference between radicals and non-radicals and that is what you base your agenda off of? I editted above so you know what I was referring to, I care nothing of perfection just hypocrisy. Just face it, there are no moral absolutes and there never have been. Edit to Michael C: Oh ok sure the APA changed it's views on homosexuality, well then let's examine what they say about delusions. YEP! Belief in your god is a delusion but they have the caveat that religion can't be construed that way. Maybe because they didn't want to offend you deluded people? Are you really idiotic enough to not know that homosexuality have been found in over 1500 other animal species there by indicating it's not a psychological problem? As for breaking down morals, you once again show your idiocy by not taking into account moral relativism which is what this question is directly about. Edit To Michael C again: "Who do you think is behind all the uproar as a result of California Prop 8? " So for some reason you think it's ok to not allow a certain sect of people to have rights AND you think they won't be unhappy about it? Let me guess, you wear a white pointy hat on the weekends?

  • 3 years ago

    Moral Absolutism

  • 9 years ago

    Moral absolutism is the view that there can be right and wrong answers to moral questions. A well known promoter of this idea is Sam Harris.

    Moral relativism is the view that moral questions can have multiple answers/outcomes, depending on the circumstances, culture, etc.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    Moral Absolutism is the idea that there are moral absolutes - for example, saying "Murder is always wrong in every situation ever, no exceptions," is a moral absolute. It suggests that morality exists as its own entity.

    Moral Relativism is the idea that what's immoral to you might be moral to someone else.

  • 4 years ago

    This Site Might Help You.


    Moral Absolutism vs Moral Relativism?

    Can someone please explain the difference between Moral Absolutism and Moral Relativism?

    Source(s): moral absolutism moral relativism:
  • Sue
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    Moral absolutism = something is always right or wrong no matter what. Relativism would be according to the situation / situation ethics. So - What determines what is morally right or wrong.

  • 9 years ago

    Moral absolutism is a myth. Moral relativism is what has always been practiced.

    What was considered immoral by any particular religion one hundred or one thousand years ago has changed. They just won't see it, and think their morals are absolute..

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Moral absolutism is saying that morality exists as an independent entity, apart from culture and subjective experience.

    Moral relativism is the idea that morality is an idea, something unreal, and subjective.

  • 9 years ago

    relativity is relative to your position as an observer. its observation is colored by your perspective

    absolutism is a point in which the observers limited opinion is irrelevant , the absolute truth is

    not based on opinion but upon position relative to a fixed standard

    moral absolutism says killing people because its wrong because it " feels selfish of you"

    moral absolutism says killing is wrong because god said it is a sin

    a sin can never "feel good" and be right. that is an absolute

    when right and wrong are clear cut , people live better knowing there is a standard that is not

    squishy and vague

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.