Moral Absolutism: Right Or Wrong?

6 Pages 1624 Words

Moral Absolutism: Right or Wrong?

Moral absolutism is defined as “the belief that some moral rules are binding on everyone, regardless of cultural differences.”1 Many people support this belief based on the ideals and values of their culture. They think that there should be a specific set of principles protecting and governing all human beings. However, others believe that values can be accepted in one culture and rejected in another culture. This idea is based on the belief that moral principles differ across cultures. The views of the relativist and absolutist are contrary to one another. In this paper, I will argue that the absolutist’s beliefs are well-developed and humble, whereas the relativist’s views are flawed and contradictory.
In Philosophical Dilemmas, Washburn uses an article entitled, “Right for You, Wrong for Me?” to demonstrate an absolutist’s point of view. The absolutist dissects and criticizes the relativist’s beliefs in two main areas. First, he questions the relativist’s belief that an action may be right for one person and unacceptable for another person. Much emphasis and criticism is placed on this concept and the absolutist argues that there is no influential difference between people to justify such a belief. Secondly, the absolutist condemns relativism for its inability to recognize that different cultures encounter one another. He points out that, in the event of cultural contact, an action by a person in one group will affect a person in another group. In this situation, the relativist would say that the action is right for one person, but wrong for the other person. The absolutist proclaims that the possibility of an action being both right and wrong is non-existent. These views of relativism are flawed and contradictory.
“In general, some say that every person must decide what moral principles to adopt. It is a personal decision, and no one can judge anoth...