Jump to content

Moral absolutism: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
(37 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong}}
{{distinguish|Moral universalism}}
{{Other uses|Moral universalism|Moral high ground}}
{{About|moral absolutism as a theory of [[normative ethics]]|moral absolutism as a theory of [[meta-ethics]]|Moral universalism}}
{{multiple issues|{{one source|date=January 2015}}
{{multiple issues|{{one source|date=January 2015}}
{{original research|date=January 2015}}}}
{{original research|date=January 2015}}}}
'''Moral absolutism '''is an [[Ethics|ethical]] view that some (potentially all) [[action (philosophy)|actions]] are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context or consequence.


==Comparison with other ethical theories==
'''Moral absolutism''' is an [[Ethics|ethical]] view that particular [[action (philosophy)|actions]] are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always [[Immorality|immoral]], even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of [[normative ethics|normative ethical theories]] such as [[consequentialism]], which holds that the [[morality]] (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.
⚫
Moral absolutism is not the same as [[moral universalism]]. Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to [[moral relativism]]),<ref>{{Cite web|title=Moral Absolutism|url=https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/moral-absolutism|website=Ethics Unwrapped|language=en-US|access-date=2020-05-27}}</ref> but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism). [[Louis Pojman]] gives the following definitions to distinguish the two positions of moral absolutism and objectivism:<ref name="PojmanDefense">Pojman, L. P. ''A Defense of Ethical Objectivism'' (p. 50).</ref>

⚫
Moral absolutism is not the same as [[moral universalism]]. Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to [[moral relativism]]), but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism). Moral universalism is compatible with moral absolutism, but also positions such as consequentialism. [[Louis Pojman]] gives the following definitions to distinguish the two positions of moral absolutism and universalism:<ref name="PojmanDefense">Pojman, L. P. ''A Defense of Ethical Objectivism'' (p. 50).</ref>
* Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.
* Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.
* Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.
* Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.
Line 13: Line 13:


==Religion==
==Religion==
Moral absolutism may be understood in a strictly secular context, as in many forms of deontological [[moral rationalism]]. However, many religions have morally absolutist positions as well, regarding their system of morality as [[divine command theory|deriving from divine commands]]. Therefore, they regard such a moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable. Many secular philosophies also take a morally absolutist stance, arguing that absolute laws of morality are inherent in the nature of human beings, the nature of life in general, or the universe itself. For example, someone who believes absolutely in [[nonviolence]] considers it wrong to use violence even in self-defense.
One can adhere to moral absolutism in a strictly secular context, exemplified by the many variations of deontological [[moral rationalism]]. However, many religions, especially ones which define divine commandments, also adhere to moral absolutist positions. Therefore, to followers of such religions, the moral system is absolute, perfect and unchanging. Some secular philosophies, borrowing from religion, also take a morally absolutist position, asserting that the absolute laws of morality are inherent in the nature of people, the nature of life in general, or the Universe itself.{{Citation needed|date=April 2023}} For example, someone who absolutely believes in non-violence considers it wrong to use violence even in self-defense.


[[Catholic philosopher]] [[Thomas Aquinas]] never explicitly addresses the [[Euthyphro dilemma]], but draws a distinction between what is good or evil in itself and what is good or evil because of God's commands,{{sfn|Aquinas|c. 1265–1274|loc=2a2ae [http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3057.htm#article2 57.2]}} with unchangeable moral standards forming the bulk of [[natural law]].{{sfn|Aquinas|c. 1265–1274|loc=2a1ae [http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2094.htm#article5 94.5]}} Thus he contends that not even God can change the [[Ten Commandments]], adding, however, that God ''can'' change what individuals deserve in particular cases, in what might look like special dispensations to murder or steal.{{sfn|Aquinas|c. 1265–1274|loc=1a2ae [http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2100.htm#article8 100.8]}}
[[Catholic philosopher]] [[Thomas Aquinas]] never explicitly addresses the [[Euthyphro dilemma]], but draws a distinction between what is good or evil in itself and what is good or evil because of God's commands,{{sfn|Aquinas|c. 1265–1274|loc=2a2ae [http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3057.htm#article2 57.2]}} with unchangeable moral standards forming the bulk of [[natural law]].{{sfn|Aquinas|c. 1265–1274|loc=2a1ae [http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2094.htm#article5 94.5]}} Thus he contends that not even God can change the [[Ten Commandments]], adding, however, that God ''can'' change what individuals deserve in particular cases, in what might look like special dispensations to murder or steal.{{sfn|Aquinas|c. 1265–1274|loc=1a2ae [http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2100.htm#article8 100.8]}}


==See also==
==See also==
{{columns-list|colwidth=20em|
{{Columns-list|colwidth=20em|
* [[Authoritarianism]]
* [[Authoritarianism]]
* [[Deontological ethics]]
* [[Deontological ethics]]
Line 33: Line 33:


==Notes==
==Notes==
{{reflist}}
{{Reflist}}


{{Ethics}}
{{Ethics}}
{{Authority control}}


⚫
[[Category:Ethical theories]]
[[Category:Morality|Absolutism]]
[[Category:Morality|Absolutism]]
[[Category:Normative ethics]]
[[Category:Deontology]]
⚫
[[Category:Ethical theories]]

Revision as of 19:18, 9 October 2023

For other uses, see Moral universalism and Moral high ground.

Moral absolutism is an ethical view that some (potentially all) actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context or consequence.

Comparison with other ethical theories

Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism. Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to moral relativism),[1] but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism). Louis Pojman gives the following definitions to distinguish the two positions of moral absolutism and objectivism:[2]

  • Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.
  • Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.

Ethical theories which place strong emphasis on rights and duty, such as the deontological ethics of Immanuel Kant, are often forms of moral absolutism, as are many religious moral codes.

Religion

One can adhere to moral absolutism in a strictly secular context, exemplified by the many variations of deontological moral rationalism. However, many religions, especially ones which define divine commandments, also adhere to moral absolutist positions. Therefore, to followers of such religions, the moral system is absolute, perfect and unchanging. Some secular philosophies, borrowing from religion, also take a morally absolutist position, asserting that the absolute laws of morality are inherent in the nature of people, the nature of life in general, or the Universe itself.[citation needed] For example, someone who absolutely believes in non-violence considers it wrong to use violence even in self-defense.

Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas never explicitly addresses the Euthyphro dilemma, but draws a distinction between what is good or evil in itself and what is good or evil because of God's commands,[3] with unchangeable moral standards forming the bulk of natural law.[4] Thus he contends that not even God can change the Ten Commandments, adding, however, that God can change what individuals deserve in particular cases, in what might look like special dispensations to murder or steal.[5]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ "Moral Absolutism". Ethics Unwrapped. Retrieved 2020-05-27.
  2. ^ Pojman, L. P. A Defense of Ethical Objectivism (p. 50).
  3. ^ Aquinas & c. 1265–1274, 2a2ae 57.2.
  4. ^ Aquinas & c. 1265–1274, 2a1ae 94.5.
  5. ^ Aquinas & c. 1265–1274, 1a2ae 100.8.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moral_absolutism&oldid=1179380790"