Moral Relativism and Absolutism

Moral Relativism and Absolutism

Introduction

This paper has been written with regards to moral relativism and moral absolutism, and arguments have been presented to defend the former and refute the latter. Furthermore, the paper has also discussed the implications of the choice that have been made for the family, for society, for education, and for republican government.

Discussion

Difference

Moral relativism is concerned with the differences that occur when moral judgments are made across diverse cultures. Since relativism is divided into three parts, the three aspects that are considered include “descriptive relativism” that refers to the way things are. This point out the fact that people disagree to something which is most moral. Moreover, “meta-ethical relativism” refers to the situation when truth is not objective. Since the judgments that are made with regards to moral aspects are not universal, a relativist can say that it is moral because he believes so (Emerson, 2011). “Normative relativism” refers to the belief that there is no universal moral standard that can be used to make a judgment. On the other hand, “moral absolutism” refers to the ethical view that any action that takes place is either wrong or right regardless of the context such as consequence or the intention. Therefore, considering stealing, it can be said that the action is immoral even if it is done for the purpose of supporting a good cause. Here, the example of stealing food in order to fulfill the needs of the starving family suits well (Mason & Rauchut, 2008).

Argument

Theorists have also formulated ethical theories that help us in making ethical choices. One such theory is the natural law ethical theory. This is extremely helpful in aiding us to understand the human actions that are morally right or wrong. Every human has some sense that enables him to understand what ...