ABSOLUTISM (morality) - making normative ethical decisions based on objective rules (strict) ->
maintains some things are intrinsically either right OR wrong, fixed for all time, places and people.
Pros:
Fair, as all rules are the same for
every situation
Universal and simple; easy to follow
Can support universal law, e.g. UN declaration
of human rights
Allows law to progress
Popular for religious believers.
Cons:
Life is not ‘black and white’ : not simple to make everyone live by the same rules
Who decides what rules are right or wrong?
Every circumstance is different
Absolutists can be intolerant to/of cultural diversity
RELATIVISM – nothing is intrinsically right or wrong (flexible) -> popular modern day theory, the belief
that everyone should be tolerant towards other beliefs and views.
Pros:
Allows for diversity
Allows that life isn’t black and white = situations are all
different
A dependency thesis: depends on society to decide what is right/wrong
Stands apart from religious authority
Cultures will allow acceptance and a greater understanding
of cultures if using relativism
Cons:
Just because of different views, doesn’t mean
they’re right; Nazi, etc
Cultural relativism reduces what is ‘good’ to what is
socially acceptable
Relativists often seen as selfish
Doesn’t allow law to progress
Too forgiving to certain situations
Too many ‘grey’ areas
Absolutism vs. Relativism
Relativists...
would see the religious significance and that the importance of
the practise to the religion /religious community and will
therefore not condemn it.
Absolutists...
can appear to be intolerant to views of others e.g. if
they’re against the cruelty to animals, they would be
against the religious methods of slaughtering animals.
Deontological theory
ABSOLUTISM = deontological theory ->
doing what is right, following rules and
duty.
Able to take strong moral positions
on certain actions.
Not flexible enough to take
into account special
circumstances/cultural
groups.
Concerned with the nature of each individual’s act
themselves – based on laws
acts are intrinsically
right or wrong.
Teleological (consequentialist) theory
Relativism = teleological -> what is right/wrong,
depends on the end or outcome of an action.
An action isn’t intrinsically good, but good by the virtue (righteousness) of the
result
Weaknesses: how can you be sure of what the end is? Do ends
justify the means?