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

Compare absolute and relative morality

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

´╗┐Compare absolute and relative morality There are two types of morality, absolute morality and relative morality. An absolutist believes that certain things are always right or wrong no matter the consequences or situation, while a relativist is more concerned with outcomes and believes something is either right or wrong based in certain circumstances or situations. An absolute command is a command that is true all the time, in all places and all situations. An absolutist thinks about what is the right thing of itself, for example murder, because killing someone regardless of the consequences of an action or the results might occur. this means they approach is deontological. The system is simple and easy to apply, as a crime will be a crime regardless of the circumstances. ...read more.

Middle

Also, it enable us to have a UN Declaration of human rights, as it provides a universal code to measure everything against. However, there are many weakness to absolutism as ethics are deontological which means that it pays no regard to the outcome or consequences of an action, so for example, if a poor mother stole food to feed her hungry child, this act would be judged wrong, because absolute ethics believe a crime is a crime, even though surely the stealing is for outcome and her child's life is more important. Also no one can really know what absolute morals are since all sources of morality are open up to people's opinions and own interpretation. ...read more.

Conclusion

avoids the mother bringing a child into the world and giving it a bad life, so with relativism they are more concerned with the outcome. However, there are a number disadvantages to relativism, such as it is very difficult to apply, as judgements are always subjective and based and influenced by peoples' thoughts, feeling and opinions, so everyone's ideas of what is right and wrong will be different. Relativism is a lot more difficult to apply than absolutism. Also some acts have always wrong like genocide, so relativism doesn't allow moral progress. In conclusion, absolute ethics and relativist ethics ways of judgement are both very different, both having lots of disadvantages and advantages. however in my opinion relativist judgements are better, because they take certain situations into account and acts like abortion cannot be wrong. ...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. "Humanitarian intervention, which is ruled out by realism and the morality of states, can ...

    The opposing view to cosmopolitan morality is the fact that there will always be over-riding obligations from parent to child and friend to friend. There are some communities that have special obligations to each other. This would lead to the argument that there is a special obligation between the state

  2. Religion and Morality

    Lastly, many people argue that religion is itself immoral, as it is through religion that the most part of suicide bomb attacks, and other horrific acts are carried out. Examples could be drawn from the events in America involving the Twin Towers, or more recently the teacher in Sudan who

  1. moral relativist

    For example, many argue that moral relativism just simply saying that different actions are right in different situations, and that there is not necessarily a definite right or wrong in every situation. If we used these moral relativist theories as a guide then surely according to some people, there would

  2. Abosolute and Relative morality

    An absolutist would say categorically yes or categorically no. This is because they believe that the circumstances of the situation do not matter and that it is either right or wrong. An absolutist would take the stand, why weight up the circumstances when the outcome is always to be the same.

  1. Modern life-prolonging technologies have sharpened some ancient dilemmas on the value of life.

    But when beds, drugs, machines, or personnel are too scarce to save all, then questions not answerable by SL must be answered. SL does not make triage unnecessary just because it makes choice impossible. When not all sanctified lives can be saved, then either we develop criteria to save a good number, or we wring our hands in righteousness.

  2. Explain the differences between absolute and relative morality. 'Relativist theories give no convincing reason ...

    This means that if a tribe in Africa believe cannibalism is right, then it is right for them, even if it is wrong for us. Or to use the above example, euthanasia is right in Switzerland but wrong in England.

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