Absolutists would, most probably, have these definite opinions about whether something is definitely right or wrong because of evidence they have seen or they have been told is correct. The evidence is usually: scientific (e.g. the techniques used in abortion would definitely cause the unborn child pain and therefore it is evil and wrong); statistical (i.e. many women who have backstreet abortions are harmed and even killed by the operation and therefore abortion is wrong); or religious (i.e. the Bible teaches in the sanctity of life and that all forms of taking a human life is wrong). They also use laws and rules to make their decisions. They will value the laws of the land and things such as the 10 commandments. The only specifically absolutist rule is “follow the good and avoid the evil”- meaning that they base their absolute decisions on what they deem to be good or evil. The use of evidence to decide whether something is right or wrong is called objectivism. Although this is, in itself, another ethical theory it can be closely tied in with absolutism.
Alternatively, Relativists could also make their decisions intrinsically. This means that they have a gut feeling and instinctively know whether something is right or wrong. This is called Subjectivism which is another ethical theory.
It could be argued that Absolutism can be very useful. It is a “universal code” which someone could use to decide whether something is right or wrong. It can be used very easy to apply as there are no technicalities about it- far easier to apply than relativism All someone needs to do is recognise what has happened and make a judgement on it. Most people have some intrinsically absolutist views: cruelty to children is always wrong.
However, Absolutism doesn’t consider different circumstances and cultural norms. Someone could say that killing is always wrong, but what if it was self defence? This would make no difference to an absolutist who would still see it as wrong. Furthermore, it’s also very hard to decide on a definite set of morals that are universally acceptable. It also doesn’t take into account the consequences of an action (Deontological).
Likewise, Relativism has both strengths and weaknesses. Firstly, it is much more flexible than Absolutism. It can fit alot more situations as it takes everything into account. Therefore this is arguably more reliable than Absolutism as it is more specific uses more evidence.
However, the judgements are always made depending on how someone feels about a matter (subjectivism). If someone has had a bad experience of something in the past, they will feel negatively towards it and therefore their judgements can be easily influenced. There are no guidelines so making a decision can sometimes be very hard. Because of this, everyone will have different opinions and therefore there is no way to make anything universally correct. It is also far more difficult to apply to a situation that absolutism as there are no set rules.
One of the most universally controversial topics is abortion. Abortion is particularly controversial as people are much undecided about when the embryo, foetus or unborn child becomes human. Some people would say that it becomes human from contraception, others say as soon as it can feel pain and some would say that it only becomes human when it is born.
The key example of absolutism in the case of abortion is the Roman Catholic Church. “The Roman Catholic teaches that life must be safeguarded with the utmost care from the moment of contraception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes” (David Smith). Catholics have a definite view that abortion is always wrong as it goes against the sanctity of life and Thomas Aquinas’ Natural Law theory. They are objective and use the Bible (which they believe to be truth) as evidence. They would say that one of the 10 commandments is “thou shall not kill” (Exodus 19:23). This is a direct order from their God and in their eyes it is simply imperative. They could also argue that as God made all humans (Genesis) only he has the power to take life away. Furthermore God created all humans in his image and it killing a human (or something that has the potential to be human) could be classes as blasphemes.
However, another Christian denomination, the Church of England (Anglican church) would take a relativistic view on abortion. They would acknowledge that the foetus has the potential for life but would also look at the situation. If the mother’s life is at risk, or it wasn’t her fault that she became pregnant, the Church of England would see abortion as acceptable.
It is illegal to abort a child in Ireland, because of their strong religious beliefs that still affect the government. However, in the early 1990s, a 14 year old school girl fell pregnant. She wanted to have an abortion and travelled to London. The day before the abortion, the Irish government made contact with the girls family, threatening prison sentences if she carried through with the abortion. An absolutist could say that she should definitely not be allowed to have an abortion, as it is always wrong.
However, the girl was actually raped by her school friend’s dad. Absolutists would not have taken this into account, however Relativists would have looked at this and realised that it was not the girl’s fault she fell pregnant- a fact which would almost certainly change the judgement.
Sometimes, the absolutist and the relativist views can come up with the same Judgement. Recently in the news, we have heard a lot about the cruel death of “Baby P” by his step father and step uncle. His mother was not actually involved in the crime, but watched and did nothing to protect her son. Both absolutists and relativists would say that this is morally wrong as child abuse is both objectively and subjectively wrong.
Both absolutism and relativism are valid ways of reaching a moral judgement. Absolutism is very easy to apply to any situation and provides a strict “code” for moral judgements. On the other hand, Relativism is very flexible and can be used in a great number of situations; it can also give very reliable judgements as it takes the situation into account rather than just the action. However, I would have to conclude that I think Relativism is the more useful tool for making moral judgements. It takes everything into account and therefore would give a more reliable and credible judgement.
