• 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

    Ideally, a drug would be taken that could numb your emotions for a short period of time in order that you would appear sombre to your relatives, but in fact feel nothing. Such a drug, however, does not exist, so realistically it would be best to inform your relatives of your closure, and therefore will not be attending the funeral.

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

    but more of a desire for the good of the other person, this love introduced in the New Testament is called, Agape. It is an unconditional love which requires nothing in return. Fletcher's fifth proposition states that love is to be the final end, "only the love justifies the means, nothing else.

  1. 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

  2. From the religion you have studied, discuss the view that religious ethics must be ...

    It is closely related to the word responsibility, which implies an action prompted by a sense of loyalty to something outside the self. The person who acts from duty acts not in order to reach a goal, but because of an inner commitment.

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

    When it involves others, the individual is subject to regulation in the interest of preventing harm to others. Mill also constructed a liberal defence of intervention in cases where the destruction of the target population could be shown to the responsibility of the intervening power.

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

    The answer seems to have these two parts: 1. The value of life exceeds all other values. No other value overrides the value of life except possibly more life. 2. All lives are of equal value. No single life deserves priority over another, not even the most fit, hopeful, and developed over the most vegetative, wretched, or immature.

  1. Explain the differences between Cultural Relativism and Cultural Absolutism

    neighbour? in the Bible or ?Let him who desires his own advantage not harm another? which is found in Buddhist text. This shows that although these religions can be very different, the fundamental values found are the same. Cultural absolutists believe these values are the same in human beings around the world, regardless of culture.

  2. 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.

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