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

Moral Absolutism can Never be Justified. Discuss

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Moral Absolutism can never be justified The black and white, deontological dualism of moral absolutism has laid the foundations of our ethics, and has orientated the needle of the human moral compass. As with any durable structure, the base must be solid, thus justifying the use of moral absolutism in order to build a community. Deontological ethics is the basis for Teleological ethics, and without absolutism, relativism cannot exist. For example, without the principle that murder is wrong, it would be impossible to argue that there are mitigating circumstances in which it is right. However, now that societal laws have been built, can moral absolutism still be justified? Moral Absolutism is frequently associated with Christianity, since it reflects the immutability and perfect judgement of God. Like Christianity, moral absolutism offers answers which nothing else can explain, thus it is more applicable to everyday situations. For example, in the case of a snap decision, it makes sense to utilise the deontological ethics instilled in us from childhood, and perhaps even before then. ...read more.

Middle

Sceptics of Moral Absolutism might argue that it is too rigid a belief system, and cannot foresee a circumstance in which murder really would be acceptable. However, an absolutist can be absolute about anything, as described by Julian Baggini, "the moral rules can be as nuanced and finely distinguished as you like." This means that an absolutist could believe that murder is always wrong, except in self defence, or to protect a greater amount of people. Therefore, deontological ethics can evolve with modern day society, whilst also preventing cultural injustices. Surely then, moral absolutism is the way forward? Sadly, moral absolutism is a trap. It narrows our minds and halts ethical progression. If we take the example of fundamentalist religion, it is clear that absolutism leads to valuing one's own ideas above all others. The concrete conviction in certain moral beliefs prevents any form of moral honesty, or as James Elliot puts it, "I respect your right to have your opinion, but I'll spend the rest of my life disagreeing with it." ...read more.

Conclusion

Should slavery have continued, and an individual realises it to be wrong, this would be their ethic, and nobody else's. It is not their place to campaign for the abolition of slavery, since it is the right of proponents of slavery to continue on moral grounds. In other words, moral absolutism results in to absolutes being absolutely equal, and no campaigning or persuasion is even conceivable. Therefore, moral absolutism chokes the progression of society and allows the continued existence of injustice. In conclusion, moral absolutism in its most concrete form can never be justified, as it serves to empower racists, disable progressive thought and generate conflict between cultures. However, relativism as we know it cannot be justified either, since it is mere mutable absolutism. Relativism allows for the justification for any agenda, and when done so, is imposed absolutely. What those who are serious about their morality should search for is an absolutist ethic, so delicately nuanced that it permits persuasion, and keeps intact the integrity of cultures and separate belief systems. ?? ?? ?? ?? Jonathan Inglis Moral Absolutism can Never be Justified ...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. Utilitarianism VS Kantian Deontological Ethics

    funerals as they exist at the moment would cease to be convention. People would most probably mourn in their own homes, which would be fine, and thus the only rebound from telling your relatives you don't want to come would be emotional feelings, which are according to Kant, is not morality and therefore irrelevant in this case.

  2. Can moral absolutism be justified?

    The practise of situation ethics also takes into account the outcome of an action and opposes that of moral absolutism, as making moral conclusions according to situation ethics relies only on the principle of love or agape. To do what is most loving in a situation may be seen as

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

    However, the analogy between states and individuals can be pushed too far. Simply being a state involves acceptance of being a part of a body of rules. The most important moral rules become part of international law, which subsequently incorporates the morality of states.

  2. "It is impossible to reconcile any kind of determinism with the concept of freewill." ...

    When someone is criticised for looking sloppy, or making an offensive remark, he may try to excuse himself with an "I could not help it" remark. But if he is a normal person mentally, then he could have helped it; he could have acted differently.

  1. Considering the claims of both absolutism and relativism, discuss the importance of situation ethics ...

    is only wrong because the act in itself breaks a moral rule. Absolutists are deontological thinkers as they are concerned with the acts, not the consequences whereas relativists are teleological thinkers, 'telos' meaning end, as they are concerned with the endings, the consequences.

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

    reason could not pass through the birth canal, physicians and families had a simple, painful choice. They could perform a Caesarean section to save the child, entailing the almost certain death of the mother. Or they could save the mother by avoiding any surgical incision, kill the fully developed fetus in utero, and remove it in pieces.

  1. There are no moral absolutes, discuss.

    Another argument for Relativism is that absolutist moral standards, in some circumstances can lead onto extreme evils. The famous example that illustrates this is that of a crazed axe-murderer coming to your front door and asking you where your children are.

  2. Explain the differences between Cultural Relativism and Cultural Absolutism

    and Yemen, it is very dangerous to women?s health but some people in the country would try to justify it by saying that because it has been happening for many years, it is tradition, and cultural relativism would say that we could not disagree with that, therefore, some people think

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