Can moral absolutism be justified?
Extracts from this essay...
"Moral absolutism cannot be justified" Discuss There are arguments to suggest that moral absolutism cannot be justified as it is not a reasonable solution to any ethical situation. The theory of moral relativism upholds that there are no universally valid moral principles, opposing the theory of moral absolutism. Relative morals can change according to the situation, where as absolutism leaves no flexibility for certain situations. Some would put forward the view that examining an ethical situation from a teleological point of view is a greater means of deciding how to act than absolutism. Teleological ethics explain that actions are right or wrong depending on the outcome; the outcome of an action is not taken into account in the principles of moral absolutism therefore this could be seen as a weakness. Problems in disregarding the consequences of a moral action could arise in certain situations, such as the absolutist decision that the intentional taking of a human life is always wrong, even in situations where the taking of one human life is required to save others. For example, a moral absolutist could argue against the termination of a pregnancy, even if it is necessary to save the mother's
What is seen as morally acceptable in one culture may be frowned upon in another, for example it is the norm in some cultures for a man to take more than one wife, where as in most western cultures this is seen as immoral. Cultural relativism maintains that truth itself is relativist and all beliefs are equally valid. The cultural diversity of our world makes it difficult to establish universal morals which every culture should follow, and if the people of a particular culture are content then we should not impose our own morals on them, as we are each a product of our own culture, narrowing our views of what is right or wrong. The fact that the world is constantly changing also means that morals could be seen as relative according to their historical context, and because of this absolute morals are not likely to survive. Additionally, the controversy in meta-ethics makes moral absolutism unfeasible, as there is no universally accepted definition of right and wrong. What one person describes as right is always subject to disagreement amongst others, therefore it is impossible to agree on absolute moral principles which everyone should uphold.
This worldwide awareness of right and wrong is exemplified in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, in which a set of rules for multiple nations to live by is established. In response to the idea of cultural relativism one could argue that moral absolutism enables us to effectively judge the actions of another culture, and if all cultures followed this absolute reasoning everyone would have a greater standard of moral living. Cultural relativism could be used as an excuse to act immorally and by having a set of moral absolutes this is made unjustifiable. Moreover, in many religions a set of moral absolutes is provided by the deity, therefore by obeying these fundamental principles of right or wrong a person is seen as living a morally good life in the eyes of God, and to go against them because of circumstances or consequences is sinful. As God issued the rules by which mankind should follow, they must be perfect since God is perfect. In conclusion, I agree with the statement that moral absolutism cannot be justified, as moral absolutism is too inflexible in it's principles to allow exceptions in extreme situations, such as where the life of a human being is concerned.
Found what you're looking for?
- Start learning 29% faster today
- Over 150,000 essays available
- Just £6.99 a month
- Over 180,000 student essays
- Every subject and level covered
- Thousands of essays marked by teachers