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

Explain Moral Absolutism. [25] Moral absolutism is a deontological view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act.

Extracts from this document...


Explain Moral Absolutism. [25] Moral absolutism is a deontological view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. Thus lying, for instance, might be considered to be intrinsically wrong, even if done to promote some other good, for example lying with the intension to save a life. But this does not mean that it claims that there are fixed moral laws only that moral decisions are related to principles, that can be applied universally. Deontological ethics is concerned with nature of the acts themselves. They are right or wrong in themselves, they are not flexible. Where as teleological ethics is concerned with the end of result of the action, the consequences not the action itself. A person who followed this view would hold up the link between the action and the consequence as extremely important in decision the complete opposite to deontological ethics. Absolutism followers can argue that other cultures as certain things are right from an objective point of view and cannot change from according to culture. ...read more.


No matter what will be the result of these actions. This meaning that absolutism stands on the other side of the hill, metaphorically speaking, to ethical views like relativism, which are teleological ethical arguments. Relativism takes a situation and looks at the end product of what has happened and if that is a good consequence then it was a good moral decision. For instance there situations where theft could be considered a good moral decision if a parent where to steal food for their child because they couldn't provide for them this would be classed as a good moral decision as something good cam out of it. Unlike absolutism, Relativism doesn't take the actual action into account only the result of the action, which is in fact the complete opposite to absolutism, which never takes the consequences of an action into account and only ever the action itself. 'Moral Absolutism cannot be justified', Discuss. ...read more.


My last point brings me to a major question; if we are following intrinsic laws that are wrong in themselves they must have been wrong forever. Where have they come from? You can only really gain an answer for this if you are religious and believe a divine being that has put these rules upon our nature and world. However if you are a non-believer this is a very difficult question. Perhaps it has become because our society and inevitably culture. But times were once very different and things that we know see as wrong we would have happily done in the middle Ages. On the other hand absolutism is very easy follow. E.g. Lying is wrong. There is no if or buts that be given only that something is wrong and therefore you know you cannot do it. Absolutism can agree with universal laws, such as the declaration of human rights. As it is self can be universally applied and these do not take into account circumstances. Only that for instance everyone has the right to education. Etc. ...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 Philosophy 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 Philosophy essays

  1. What are the principles of natural law? Every adult has the right to become ...

    Aquinas believed that we are naturally inclined toward the good, but we cannot aim for it directly as it is too abstract. Instead, we should aim for concrete goods that are evident immediately, such as life, procreation, knowledge, society and reasonable conduct.

  2. 'It pays to be moral.' Discuss. (30)

    However, technically an ethical egoist could do anything, everything can benefit you in one way or another as it could be argued there is no such thing as an altruistic act. As an example, giving money to somebody who is homeless could be considered altruistic on the surface however it

  1. Socrates’ View of Persuasion

    His "rhetoric" is a means of testing people and ideas rather than a means of imposing his ideas upon others. The style of the Plato's dialogue is important - it is the Socratic style that he employs throughout. A Socratic dialogue takes the form of question-answer.

  2. Compare Two Deontological Theories

    and the theory states that every action must work to fulfil its purpose; every action against it is immoral. According to the theory natural law is accessible through the natural order of the world and is unchanging. It is arguable that part of the theory is teleological as it is

  1. Which of Kant's formulations of the categorical imperative offers the most plausible account of ...

    He then asks whether he could will a world in which everyone is similarly motivated. Clearly he can coherently conceive of such a world, so this kind of case is different from the first. But can he rationally will that everyone act on this maxim as though by a law of nature?

  2. After the printing of the picture of the prophet of Islam, Mohammed, the moral ...

    From the moment that those two aeroplanes fatally collided with the twin towers, hatred towards Muslims has escalated and recent events serve as proof. It has exposed Denmark's Islamophobia in a country where Muslims like in France, a nation that re-printed the pictures, feel segregated from society.

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