Morality Is Absolute Research Paper

PH – 309
Ethical Theory
Paper 1
Morality Is Absolute
Morality is absolute, universal, and objective. I hope to support this theory of Moral Absolutism by (1) discussing the invalid arguments suggested by Ethical Subjective Relativists, (2) discussing the invalid arguments suggested by Ethical Conventional Relativists, and (3) relating inherent human rights to the necessity of absolute morality. Allow me to take this moment to clarify what is meant by Moral Absolutism. The theory of Absolutism is in large part regarded and understood through its Christian religious context. That is, moral obligations and duties are thought to derive from and be expressed to us through divine commands. For the purpose of this paper I have respectfully chosen
He strongly believes that cultural relativism neither supports, proves, or demands any truth from ethical relativism, nor is cultural relativism make to morality relative. It also does not successfully argue against the moral absolutist view that there exists an absolute standard or set of principles for judging morality of actions. An objectivist, he explains in his article, can agree that different cultures have different moral codes, yet he can still “defend a form of universalism by arguing that some cultures simply lack correct moral principle”. In the process, he discredits the dependency thesis, which states that morality is culturally based. It states that what confirms moral principles is the judgment of the society, that what is right is determined by what the society accepts, and what is wrong is what the society does not consider to be “normal”. Pojman in his article, ‘A Defense of Ethical Objectivism’, thus concludes “that there are universal moral principles based on common human nature and a need to solve conflicts of interest and
In many examples presented by ethical relativism, the violation of basic human rights is clearly present. By saying that acts can be judged based on the society’s acceptance (conventionalism), then destroying an entire race for the dominance of one’s own religion or enslaving whole nations because one’s society believes it to be right must be considered acts of goodness. By claiming that the individual is the sole basis of morality (subjectivism), then stealing for the sake of a woman’s family’s survival or intruding on someone else’s privacy for the sake of feeling assured your girlfriend isn’t cheating must be accounted for as moral actions. Basic rights like the right to life, right to choose one’s own religion, right to property, or right to live peacefully are apparently violated. Furthermore, Moral Relativism does not foster cultural tolerance, but rather allows for the lack of and violation of universal human rights.. Rights, in that case, will be treated merely as part of a person which he or she may do away with. However, no, this is not the case. Rights are supposed to be determined by the cultural environment we grew up in or the society in which we are presently residing. These rights are not supposed to be subject to any other person’s decision. As human beings, we innately have them, and by doing away with them, we can lose a part of our being human. It is a form