Absolutism Vs Relativism
Ethical Absolutism and Ethical Relativism
Absolutism and relativism are basically two opposing approaches to ethics. Absolutism is considered more objective while Relativism is more subjective. Both ethical approaches have a number of strengths and weakness.
Absolutism is an ethical perspective that everything is certain. Actions are always considered right or wrong. An absolutist follows the notion that there is a singular moral standard that people should abide by. This is a dogmatic approach to ethics.
Absolutism permits ethical rules to be assessed critically. It is rational because people are treated equally as the rules are identical for all. According to an absolute there is no need to have different rules for different people. The downside …show more content…
It believes that circumstances are different and therefore the need to have different moral rules for people. This is a pragmatic approach to ethics.
Relativism advocates tolerance for people’s moral views in the world. It rejects the idea that there is singular moral standard like absolutism. Good or bad things tend to be judged on the basis of reasoning rather than actions. The downside is that although different moral views exists, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are all equal in value and therefore should be accepted universally.
For example, the use of bribery. “While illegal everywhere, bribery is widely practised in some countries and thought necessary for successful financial performance. The basic rule follows the ancient adage of, “When in Rome, do what the Romans do”” (Johnson, 1985 pg. 448). Adopting this idea leads corporations into using common tactics that are not always deemed proper which is apparent relativism.
Women are generally paid less than men in the workplace. According to moral relativism there is no absolute set of moral principles that determine if these actions is right or wrong, and thus we have no right to condemn this
Absolutism and relativism are basically two opposing approaches to ethics. Absolutism is considered more objective while Relativism is more subjective. Both ethical approaches have a number of strengths and weakness.
Absolutism is an ethical perspective that everything is certain. Actions are always considered right or wrong. An absolutist follows the notion that there is a singular moral standard that people should abide by. This is a dogmatic approach to ethics.
Absolutism permits ethical rules to be assessed critically. It is rational because people are treated equally as the rules are identical for all. According to an absolute there is no need to have different rules for different people. The downside …show more content…
It believes that circumstances are different and therefore the need to have different moral rules for people. This is a pragmatic approach to ethics.
Relativism advocates tolerance for people’s moral views in the world. It rejects the idea that there is singular moral standard like absolutism. Good or bad things tend to be judged on the basis of reasoning rather than actions. The downside is that although different moral views exists, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are all equal in value and therefore should be accepted universally.
For example, the use of bribery. “While illegal everywhere, bribery is widely practised in some countries and thought necessary for successful financial performance. The basic rule follows the ancient adage of, “When in Rome, do what the Romans do”” (Johnson, 1985 pg. 448). Adopting this idea leads corporations into using common tactics that are not always deemed proper which is apparent relativism.
Women are generally paid less than men in the workplace. According to moral relativism there is no absolute set of moral principles that determine if these actions is right or wrong, and thus we have no right to condemn this