Moral absolutism

Not to be confused with Moral universalism.
This article is about moral absolutism as a theory of normative ethics. For moral absolutism as a theory of meta-ethics, see Moral universalism.

Moral absolutism is an ethical view that particular actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.

Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism (also called moral objectivism). Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to moral relativism), but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism). Moral universalism is compatible with moral absolutism, but also positions such as consequentialism. Louis Pojman gives the following definitions to distinguish the two positions of moral absolutism and universalism:[1]

Ethical theories which place strong emphasis on rights and duty, such as the deontological ethics of Immanuel Kant, are often forms of moral absolutism, as are many religious moral codes.

Moral absolutism and religion

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-defense.

The problem with this being that as time goes on and societies change, so too does peoples' morality, even if they ostensibly adhere to the same religion as their ancestors. For instance, the Bible and related scholarship have a number of passages about the legality and regulation of slavery, an institution that is almost universally reviled today. Yet few people who adhere to divine command theory will argue in favor of slavery. Thus even religious moral absolutism is relative.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Pojman, L. P. : A Defense of Ethical Objectivism (p. 50)

External links