Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for example, may be considered immoral, even if done for the welfare of others (for example, stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if ultimately promoting such kindness. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to another category of normative ethical theorists such as consequentialists, who assert that the morality (in the broad sense) of an action depends on the consequences or contexts of the action.
Moral absolutism is not equal to moral universism (also called moral objectivism). Universalism simply states that what is right or wrong is not dependent on habits or opinions (as opposed to moral relativism), but it is not always that what is right or wrong does not depend on context or consequences (as in absolutism). Moral moralism is compatible with moral absolutism, but also positions such as consequentialism. Louis Pojman gives the following definition to distinguish two positions of moral absolutism and universalism:
- Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that should not be broken.
- Moral objectivism: There is a fact about the problem whether the given action is morally permissible or not permitted: the fact of the matter that depends not only on social customs or individual acceptance.
Ethical theories that place a strong emphasis on rights and duties, such as the deontological ethic of Immanuel Kant, are often a form of moral absolutism, as are many religious moral codes.
Video Moral absolutism
Religion
Moral absolutism can be understood in a very secular context, as in many forms of deontological moral rationalism. However, many religions have an absolute position that is morally also, with respect to their system of morality derived from divine commands. Therefore, they regard the moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and irreversible. Many secular philosophies also take absolutist moral stance, arguing that the law of absolute morality is inherent in human nature, the nature of life in general, or the universe itself. For example, a person who believes entirely in nonviolence thinks it is wrong to use violence and even defend themselves.
The Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas never explicitly discusses the Euthyphro dilemma, but draws the distinction between what is good or evil itself and what is good or evil because of God's command, with an irreversible moral standard forming most of the laws of nature. Thus he argues that even God can not change the Ten Commandments, but adds that God can change what an individual deserves in certain cases, in what might seem like a special dispensation for killing or stealing.
Maps Moral absolutism
See also
Note
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments