Definition

Ethical absolutism and ethical relativism are positions in ethics about the existence of objective values and intrinsically moral acts. Ethical absolutism is a position which argues for the existence of objective values and intrinsically moral acts. As such there can exist moral principles which are always valid and correct. Ethical relativism is a position that holds that moral values are relative to some further instance.

Ethical Absolutism

There seem to be moral principles which humans hold intuitively valid and correct. For example, various formulations of the “golden rule,” the gist of it being that we should treat others as we would want to be treated. This idea can be found in many moral and religious teachings. Moreover, it seems that people regardless of culture or any other factor hold this, and similar, principles and their fundamental values as true and valid. Moral absolutism is an ethical position where it is argued that moral principles, values, and rules which are always true exist. Ethical absolutism also implies that actions are intrinsically right or wrong. An excellent example of absolutism in ethics can be found in the deontological theory of a German philosopher Immanuel Kant and his idea of the categorical imperative. Actions which can pass the test of the categorical imperative should be followed in every situation, no matter the specific consequences. Christianity may serve as another example, God’s commandments are considered always valid and are expected to be obeyed.

Ethical Relativism

Although different position then ethical absolutism, ethical relativism is also supported by many examples from contemporary and historical experience. For example, already in primary school children can catch a glimpse that what we think about stealing, lying, or slavery was not always the same everywhere in the world or every point in history. There were times when slavery was just a fact of life, accepted and considered normal. Also, children very early on become aware that some practices which are considered in our society to be morally unacceptable today might be acceptable and present in some other society at the same time. Ethical relativism is a position which takes those examples into account stating that moral principles are relative to different factors and there are no objective values as such nor are there intrinsically right or wrong actions.

In ethics, several types of ethical relativism exist depending on the factors in focus which contribute to moral values being relative (Baghramian and Carter 2018). For example, cultural relativism will simply descriptively take into account that people in different cultures judge actions differently. Descriptive relativism, simply put, describes that there are differences in moral beliefs and principles from culture to culture and something which is encouraged in one may be sanctioned in the other. It is essential to add that in descriptive relativism, it is not only about differences in ethical judgments but in the basic principles themselves (Frankena 1973, p. 109). Both cultural and descriptive relativism look at cultural diversity and as such draw heavily from disciplines such as cultural anthropology.

Normative relativism, another version of ethical relativism, is about principles and not cultural differences. In essence, normative relativism will put forward a principle stating that what is good for one individual or society is not considered like that for another individual or society. This principle can be considered just like another version of descriptive relativism, but it does not stop there. The principle will continue to state that what is “really” good in one case will not be in another (Frankena 1973, p. 109). Normative relativism makes it difficult to talk about universal moral systems, and it may end up claiming that there is no possibility to ever know the absolute truth.

Third relativist position talks about the justification of moral judgments so it can be called meta-ethical relativism. This position will claim that there is no rational justification possible to consider one ethical judgment better than the other. Although all this may be the case, differences in opinions on ethics should not be taken as a reason to hold every ethical position as having the same value.

An example of relativism in ethics is the classic utilitarian approach where the justification for action is found in the consequences of that action. In other words, utilitarianism will focus on the goals of a proposed action, and actions should be judged right if their consequences are good, i.e., if they increase the amount of good in the world.

Cross-References