• 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...


´╗┐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.


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.


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. Religion and Morality

    According to Dawkins this emphasizes the serious disrespect for women in an intensely religious culture. B) To what extent is one of these claims more convincing than the other Going back to the basics of the Divine Command Theory, there are 613 commands in the Bible which were originally in

  2. Utilitarianism VS Kantian Deontological Ethics

    Qualms about moral minimalism and alienation are often used in an attempt to refute the catagorical imperative. Kant's sentiments that you should not follow your feelings because it results in you following bad ones as well as good ones is criticised because the catagorical imperative only requires you to follow your duty.

  1. "Humanitarian intervention, which is ruled out by realism and the morality of states, can ...

    This is the only legitimate reason for humanitarian intervention, according to prescriptive realism. Functional realism is of the opinion that the state should only pursue its national interest. If each state did this, it would produce the best consequences globally.

  2. moral relativist

    He stated that the right choice is not always the same, but that it depends on the circumstance, and that the right thing to do, should be the most loving thing to do. Situation ethics has many advantages including; the fact that it allows people to take responsibility for their

  1. 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.

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

    one's situation, one's contempt for the world or despair in one's circumstances, and so on. Different QL proponents will write these lists differently. But the use of such lists to QL proponents is uniform. The motive to adopt a QL position is to articulate the conditions under which a life is worth living.

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

    Morality, and therefore what is right and what is wrong, can be different across different times or places. This has unfavourable implications though, as it means that no society can make moral progress or view another society as morally wrong or corrupt.

  2. Explain the difference between Absolute and Relative Morality

    Since anyone could declare that their particular moral beliefs are absolute (and many do), and no one can demonstrate the validity of those claims, the whole thing is arbitrary.

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