Discover what ethical absolutism, or moral absolutism, is. Compare absolutism and relativism, and learn the ethical absolutism definition through examples.
Updated: 11/21/2023
Moral Absolutism | Definition & Examples
Table of Contents
Show
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an example of ethical absolutism?
One example of ethical absolutism would be the Ten Commandments. Each commandment, such as 'thou shalt not lie' is thought to permit no exceptions and is meant to apply to every human being.
Why is moral absolutism wrong?
One of the most notable signs that moral absolutism is wrong is that implies that moral rules should be followed even if they lead to bad results. For instance, one should not lie to members of the Gestapo even if it is the only way to save a life.
What does absolutism mean in ethics?
In ethics, absolutism means that moral rules are universal and unconditional. They are universal because they apply to everyone at all times. They are unconditional because they are not affected by external factors such as culture.
Table of Contents
ShowAbsolutism philosophy has taken several forms, most famously moral absolutism. What is moral absolutism, or to rephrase the question, what is ethical absolutism? Ethics and morals are often treated as synonyms, although the former sometimes indicates social values, while morals reflect personal values. Moral absolutism is not a view about the content of moral rules, for instance, whether killing is forbidden or permissible. Rather, it is a view about how moral rules work. This view was examined at length in the work of philosopher W.T. Stace in his 1937 work, The Concept of Morals. For the moral absolutist, moral rules always apply independently of what anyone may think of them, e.g., lying is always wrong no matter what. Religious precepts about morality are often treated in absolutist terms, meaning that the rules are always binding for everyone.
 |
Moral Absolutism Definition
The moral absolutism definition is the view that there are moral laws that are universal and unconditional. They are universal because they apply to everyone at all times. They are unconditional because they are not affected by circumstance, culture, or any other contextual condition. In other words, they are moral rules that always apply with no exceptions. There are several ways to envision morality in a way that denies the claims of moral absolutism, but the most prominent is ethical relativism, which loosely stated means that moral rules are conditioned. That is, they are affected by things such as context or culture. Note that this is the same as the ethical absolutism definition.
Moral Absolutism Examples
Moral absolutism is a metaethical stance, meaning that it deals with fundamental presuppositions about morality (or ethics). Thus, it is not a claim about the content of moral rules. Nevertheless, several works and declarations have been associated with moral absolutism, or at the very least, lend themselves to absolutist interpretations. Here are some moral absolutism examples:
- The Ten Commandments
- The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- The golden rule (always treat others the way you want to be treated)
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
You must cCreate an account to continue watching
Register to view this lesson
Are you a student or a teacher?
Create Your Account To Continue Watching
As a member, you'll also get unlimited access to over 88,000 lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you succeed.
Get unlimited access to over 88,000 lessons.
Try it now
It only takes a few minutes to setup and you can cancel any time.
Already registered? Log in here for access
BackResources created by teachers for teachers
Over 30,000 video lessons
& teaching resources‐all
in one place.
I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. It’s like a teacher waved a magic wand and did the work for me. I feel like it’s a lifeline.
Jennifer B.
Teacher
Back
Your next lesson will play in
10 seconds
Moral absolutism stands in stark contrast with moral relativism; which are two stances that W.T. Stace contrasted in his work, The Concept of Morals. While moral absolutism is universal and unconditional, moral relativism holds that moral rules only apply to a specific group of people. Moreover, moral rules are affected by various conditions that may enable exceptions. The exact nature of those exceptions or the kinds of conditions that affect the status or applicability of moral rules differs according to differing versions of moral relativism. The most basic form of moral relativism is cultural relativism, in which it is believed that a culture decides upon the moral rules for itself. Stace notes that the kind of ethical relativism that directly contradicts moral absolutism does not consist of the observation that people disagree about moral rules. It is non-controversial to observe disagreement about morality. What defines the moral and cultural relativism he saw taking shape was the claim that what people said about morality made that morality correct. In other words, what a culture says is right and wrong actually is right and wrong. This kind of moral relativism, he claimed, was a very startling assertion.
To clarify, one could believe in moral absolutism while also noting that people disagree about morality. A moral absolutist could say that different cultures disagree about women's rights, and this would not contradict moral absolutism. This is because the moral absolutist could then say that some cultures are simply wrong about that issue, and that any culture that denied women their human rights is violating an absolute moral rule. To see this disagreement in absolutism vs relativism terms, the moral relativist would say that whatever a culture says about women's rights is correct for that culture. If an entire culture denies rights, or some subset of rights to women, then, as a matter of fact, women in that culture don't have those rights.
Is Ethical Absolutism Realistic?
While moral relativism is certainly objectionable (since it seems to approve of any decision a culture makes about morals), the ethical absolutist approach also has some problems. For instance, if the rule 'never tell a lie,' is absolutely true, then that means that one could never lie even to help save someone. For instance, if someone were hiding a Jewish family in their house during the reign of Nazi Germany and a Nazi officer arrived at the door asking whether they were harboring anyone, then the absolutist would have to say it is not okay to lie. The implication is that by clinging to the rule of 'never lie' absolutely, something worse will probably happen: namely, the murder of the Jewish family.
 |
At least in normal circumstances, meaning not during a time of crisis such as the reign of a totalitarian government, ethical relativism seems to suggest the most intuitive moral precepts. Moral relativism seems to be the closest to accounting for the structure of moral rules. The relativist interpretation of moral rules is likely to be the easiest to follow and makes each individual happier. And ultimately, for Stace, morality is about human happiness. Nevertheless, an extreme version of moral relativism is wrong, because society cannot simply decide, for instance, that happiness is evil and should be eliminated. Thus, Stace commits to a view akin to a modified relativism in which each specific moral rule is more flexible than in absolutism, but the moral rules are not as subject to cultural decisions as with cultural moral relativism.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
W.T. Stace examined the competing views of moral absolutism and moral relativism in his work, The Concept of Morals. Moral absolutism is the view that, despite disagreements between peoples and cultures, there is one universal, unconditional set of moral rules. Moral relativism is the startling assertion that whatever is thought to be right in a culture actually is right. Ultimately, Stace viewed both absolutism and relativism as unreasonable extremes. Stace advocated a view in which people cultivated their own morality, meaning that they did not assume their moral rules were universal and unconditional. Thus, people should be flexible with their morals. Nevertheless, their moral rules should be directed toward human happiness.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
Video Transcript
Good vs. Evil
Is it always wrong to steal something that doesn't belong to you? What if you live in a society where your family will go hungry if you don't steal food for them, and there is no other way to obtain it? Is stealing still the wrong thing to do?
How you answer this question can help reveal whether you think of morals in relativist or absolutist terms or somewhere in between. In this lesson, we learn why Princeton professor and philosopher W.T. Stace believed that both philosophical approaches were inadequate by themselves.
Absolutism
When Stace published The Concept of Morals in 1937, he was participating in a conversation among philosophers about whether good and evil really are absolutes, or universal. Absolutism, in the way Stace described the approach, is the view that certain, specific morals should be applied to every human being regardless of their situation or culture. This could include beliefs like whether it's always wrong to steal and many other areas of life.
Religions have commonly thought of good and evil in absolute terms, with God as the authority determining what is right. Ancient Greek philosophers, like Socrates and Plato, were absolutists who tried to understand the nature of 'what is good?' through the use of reason rather than religious methods. An absolutist way of thinking was ingrained in earlier forms of government, such as the idea that a monarch receives the right to rule from God and therefore knows what is right and wrong.
You can remember the concept of absolutism by remembering that it's a way of saying something is absolutely right or absolutely wrong, not taking into account cultural circumstances. Absolutes are one set of ethical standards that apply to everyone, everywhere, throughout time.
Relativism
When our lesson began, we considered whether it is always wrong to steal as an example. Maybe you thought that in certain societies it would be understandable for a person to steal if it's for the purpose of helping their family survive, and if there's no other option available. This is an example of a more relativist approach.
Stace described relativism as the view that no one universal moral standard can be applied to every human being, in every culture. This viewpoint was becoming more accepted as more was understood about different cultures in the 20th century. Imagine, for instance, if an anthropologist describes the terrifying conditions of an impoverished society for the first time, and you start to relate to the plight of someone who might steal to survive. You can remember the term 'relativist' by thinking of how this approach sees different situations as relative to one another where you can take culture and circumstances into account.
Stace's Comparison
Stace pointed out that absolutists and relativists agree that different groups of people have different ideas about right and wrong. This is a commonplace statement, a platitude. It's something that no one really debates because it is simply a basic observation and can be seen in the various norms and customs of societies.
He argued that relativists of his time were going further than this accepted observation by arguing that what is thought to be morally right in other cultures is morally right. Stace saw this relativist approach as not simply a commonplace platitude but a very startling assertion. He points out that just because a culture believes that something is morally right, this doesn't make it moral behavior, even within that community. If a culture believes that enslaving or killing another ethnic group of people is the right thing to do, should the world accept that as their moral value?
Yet, even with flaws in relativism, Stace was not in favor of absolutism either. He questioned how there could ever be any one authority who could ultimately determine what the ethical absolutes should be, making absolutism a flawed approach in his eyes as well.
So, Stace saw both absolutism and relativism as flawed. He says, 'They are both, in my opinion, unreasonable extremes of opinion.' Instead, he wanted to use The Concept of Morals text to propose a sane relativism, one that was distinct from the relativism emerging during his era. He argued that there is not a universal set of moral specifics but instead a uniformity of human spirit. The particulars of each culture's ethical code might be different, but the general morality is in common.
Stace felt that this human moral spirit inspires people to act in ways that increase human happiness. If you want to be happy, he argued, it's best to cultivate your own morality. He held the hopeful view that all sane and intelligent human beings are able to tap into a universal moral spirit to guide their behavior.
Lesson Summary
In The Concept of Morals, W.T. Stace defines the absolutism and relativism of his time. Absolutism is the view that certain, specific morals should be applied to every human being regardless of their situation or culture. Relativism is the view that no one universal moral standard can be applied to every human being in every culture.
Stace saw both approaches as extreme in the way they were expressed at the time. Instead, he calls for a sane relativism. He suggests we acknowledge the uniformity of human spirit that guides the essence of the actions that increase human happiness, with specifics that may vary by society.
Learning Outcomes
You should be able to do the following after watching this video lesson:
- Describe absolutism and relativism
- Explain why W.T. Stace likes the idea of sane relativism
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
Register to view this lesson
Are you a student or a teacher?
Unlock Your Education
See for yourself why 30 million people use Study.com
Become a Study.com member and start learning now.
Become a MemberAlready a member? Log In
BackResources created by teachers for teachers
Over 30,000 video lessons
& teaching resources‐all
in one place.
I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. It’s like a teacher waved a magic wand and did the work for me. I feel like it’s a lifeline.
Jennifer B.
Teacher
Back
Moral Absolutism | Definition & Examples
Related Study Materials
Explore our library of over 88,000 lessons
Browse by subject