Aditi.A.

Lohakare

Roll-1559 Div-C
Sub-Philosophy
Topic- Absolutism and Relativism

 Absolutism and Relativism

Absolutism and Relativism objective moral truths In certain moral situations, it is
thought by absolutists that a moral truth is objective, which is that it is thought that
certain moral situations are either intrinsically right or wrong. This moral truth is
universal and unchanging in all circumstances, cultures, times and places. Plato was
an absolutist and he thought that as well as things being inherently right and wrong, he
thought that goodness itself really exists beyond this world.
The highest form, the form of goodness provoked the question of 'What is goodness
itself?". Plato thought that goodness itself was the highest form of reality, which is an
objective or absolute thing that existed eternally, beyond our limited world.

 Absolutism

Absolutism is making normative ethical decisions based on objective rules. It maintains

that some things are always right and some things are always wrong. They are fixed for
all time, places and people.

A common example of Absolutism is Kantian Ethics.

 Advantages of Absolutism

It allows moral rules to be evaluated critically.

It is fair as people are treated the same as the rules are the same for everyone.

If a moral rule is right, then there would be no need to have different rules for
different people because the absolute rules are universal.

 Disadvantages of Absolutism
Sometimes it is not appropriate to treat people the same due to circumstances that arise due
to situations.

Life is not simply 'black and white' and as this is the case, it is simply not right to make
everyone live by the same rules.

 Relativism

Relativism says that nothing is intrinsically right or wrong.

It is popular in the present day because there is a belief that everyone should be tolerant
towards others' beliefs and views; this idea for freedom of speech implies that there are no
‘real’ absolute truths.

Some believe that all human circumstances are different and therefore there is a need to
have different moral rules for people.

 Cultural Relativism

-says that different countries ‑ or even areas within a country ‑ have different values, for
example, Muslims expect women to cover up (at least some of) their bodies.

It affirms the idea 'when in Rome do as the Romans do'.

It allows there to be variety in different cultures.

However, as there are no overriding standard to compare cultures to, noone can say that one
culture is better than another because of what they believe ‑ this could be either an advantage
or a disadvantage.

Moral truths are no more than subjective feelings about behaviour which can therefore
never achieve the status of fact as they are the result of ways of life and opinions which
vary from culture to culture or person to person depending on circumstances.
 Historical Relativism

This says that what was right one hundred years ago may not be right in the present day
because times and society have moved on.

100 years ago, women did not have the vote but due to changing opinions in society they now
do and hold principal positions in parliament, etc.

Society also accepts the need to change sets of rules which used to be sufficient in
previous times.

 Advantages of Relativism

It allows for the diversity that is present in the world.

It understands that life is not black and white.

Cultures may believe that their practices are more justifiable than other cultural practices, but
by using a relativist approach, this will allow for acceptance between different peoples.

 Disadvantages of Relativism

Just because there are different moral views, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are all of
equal value. For example, the Nazis believed that they were right to kill millions of Jews,
homosexuals and disabled people: surely it would be wrong to say that this had the same
worth as other moral views. Cultural Relativists would not be able to criticise the Nazis as they
believe that all cultures have views of equal worth.

Cultural Relativism also ultimately reduces the meaning of what is ‘good’ to ‘what is socially
acceptable’. For example if a culture allows wife‑beating, then cultural relativism would also
have to say that wife‑beating is morally acceptable.

It may be more difficult to decide when the rules need changing in different circumstances.
 Absolutism versus Relativism

Ethical Absolutists can condemn practices such as the Nazi persecution of the Jews
because Absolutist views give definite guidelines as to what is right and wrong.

Relativism can take into account the reasons why something happens. Absolutists would have
to condemn a mother who steals food for her starving children because in their eyes all stealing
is wrong, whereas Relativists can say stealing is wrong usually but as the mother needed to
feed her children, what she did was right and should therefore not be condemned.

Absolutists can appear to be intolerant to views of others, for example, if they are against
cruelty of animals, they would be against the Islamic practice of sacrificing lambs, but
Relativists would be able to see the religious significance and the importance of that practice
to the Islamic community and will therefore not condemn it.

 What is the difference between Absolutism and Relativism?

Ethical absolutism holds that moral commands are true at all times. This means that they're true in
all cultures and situations. Under this view, actions such as murder and stealing are seen as
objectively wrong, regardless of their circumstance or results.Therefore, Absolutist moral theories
are deontological, as they do not consider consequences. Examples of absolutist moral theories
include Kant's Categorical Imperative and the Divine Command Theory.

In contrast, moral relativism views moral values as entirely relative to different societies and
contexts. Therefore, whether an action is right can depend on the context (such as culture) in
which it takes place. Relativist moral theories may consider the consequences of moral actions
when deciding if they are right or wrong. These theories are therefore described as teleological.
Examples of relativist moral theories include Classical Utilitarianism and Situation Ethics.

 Conclusion

They maintain that some things are intrinsically right and other things are intrinsically wrong,
and that these things are fixed for all time and all people and no one is exceptional.
Absolutism means that there is no double standards, no unfairness from circumstances and
there are moral codes which are set in stone in reinforced. An absolute set of moral truths
cannot be determined by humans as human society is always changing and therefore so will
be their perceptions on moral situations. The biggest argument for relativism is that it seems
to be the most lenient and least extreme way of dealing with certain issues. Relativists live
in a more tolerant society and it is in these circumstances that all types of people can live
together and get on with each other.