• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Absolutism is a more useful tool to make moral decisions than relativism. Discuss.

Extracts from this document...


Michael Hahn (1.43) Absolutism is a more useful tool to make moral decisions than relativism. Discuss. "Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me." Immanuel Kant comments on just how difficult it is to define how someone makes a moral decision. He compares it to the galaxy, saying that we know very little about either and both are extremely hard to predict. Making a moral decision about whether something is right or wrong can be extremely difficult to do. There are many different things to consider when making decisions, for example why someone did something and the consequences it had. We have to have some sort of "moral code" to help us decide whether something is right or wrong. So how do we do it? Some people believe that something is always definitely right or wrong; regardless of the situation- they have a definite view on whether something is morally right or wrong. This is called absolutism. An absolutist thinks that their opinion is correct universally and therefore applies to every similar situation in any location and at any time. A good example of absolutism is the Roman Catholic Church who have very strict views about things such as abortion- saying that it is always morally wrong regardless of the circumstances. ...read more.


Most people have some intrinsically absolutist views: cruelty to children is always wrong. However, Absolutism doesn't consider different circumstances and cultural norms. Someone could say that killing is always wrong, but what if it was self defence? This would make no difference to an absolutist who would still see it as wrong. Furthermore, it's also very hard to decide on a definite set of morals that are universally acceptable. It also doesn't take into account the consequences of an action (Deontological). Likewise, Relativism has both strengths and weaknesses. Firstly, it is much more flexible than Absolutism. It can fit alot more situations as it takes everything into account. Therefore this is arguably more reliable than Absolutism as it is more specific uses more evidence. However, the judgements are always made depending on how someone feels about a matter (subjectivism). If someone has had a bad experience of something in the past, they will feel negatively towards it and therefore their judgements can be easily influenced. There are no guidelines so making a decision can sometimes be very hard. Because of this, everyone will have different opinions and therefore there is no way to make anything universally correct. It is also far more difficult to apply to a situation that absolutism as there are no set rules. ...read more.


An absolutist could say that she should definitely not be allowed to have an abortion, as it is always wrong. However, the girl was actually raped by her school friend's dad. Absolutists would not have taken this into account, however Relativists would have looked at this and realised that it was not the girl's fault she fell pregnant- a fact which would almost certainly change the judgement. Sometimes, the absolutist and the relativist views can come up with the same Judgement. Recently in the news, we have heard a lot about the cruel death of "Baby P" by his step father and step uncle. His mother was not actually involved in the crime, but watched and did nothing to protect her son. Both absolutists and relativists would say that this is morally wrong as child abuse is both objectively and subjectively wrong. Both absolutism and relativism are valid ways of reaching a moral judgement. Absolutism is very easy to apply to any situation and provides a strict "code" for moral judgements. On the other hand, Relativism is very flexible and can be used in a great number of situations; it can also give very reliable judgements as it takes the situation into account rather than just the action. However, I would have to conclude that I think Relativism is the more useful tool for making moral judgements. It takes everything into account and therefore would give a more reliable and credible judgement. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Practical Questions section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Practical Questions essays

  1. Explain the difference between moral relativism and cultural relativism

    They felt that truth was variable so when they arrived in a town they would simply tell the inhabitants what they wanted to hear. The most famous sophist was a man named Protagoras. He famously said, "Man is the measure of all things" meaning that the world is based upon the way you view yourself.

  2. Moral Absolutism can Never be Justified. Discuss

    In this sense, moral absolutism is not only unjustifiable, but morally wrong. Moreover, if modern day society conducted itself in compliance with deontological ethics, it would never be modern again. Slavery, which has since been deemed to be morally wrong thanks to relativist ethics, is a good example to use.

  1. Meta-ethics is about the ways in which people understand how moral language is used, ...

    It is not evident from Moore that intuition will allow us the same degree of certainty. People's intuition about what is good and bad may greatly vary. The analysis with "sense is experience", can be examined more closely, to show the weakness of Moore's theory of Intuitionism; Children have to be taught how to behave.

  2. To what extent, if at all, should conscience be ignored when making ethical decisions?

    For example, in the same situation of warfare some were conscientious objectors. The severe cost or consequence of following their conscience was to spend a long time away from their home and family in the confinement of a prison. Some believe that under no circumstances should they kill others humans,

  1. We are free to make ethical decisions, discuss

    This implies that actions are random and it would be silly to suggest that a person was responsible for a random act. Libertarians would argue against determinists, saying if all of our life was predetermined then how can we be held responsible and punished for our actions?

  2. Can moral absolutism be justified?

    This argument has its strengths, one being that it gives a fixed ethical code to measure actions by, so that it is possible to know what is the right thing to do in most situations. In some circumstances it may be difficult to judge what the consequences of a certain

  1. Discussion of abortion

    These people would disagree with the statement because they believe that in some circumstances it is necessary to have an abortion. For example in cases of rape or if the mother is too young. They believe that the woman should have the choice whether or not to keep the baby.

  2. In what sense (if any) was Machiavelli's approach to politics 'scientific' rather than 'moral'?

    He wrote much, but in 'The Prince' Machiavelli modelled his hypothetical prince on Cesare Borgia and used him to show how the state should be run. It is for these reasons that Machiavelli's name has become synonymous with ruthlessness, cunning, and bad faith but Machiavelli's predicament and position that he

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work