FA+
Shop
1-Step Guide: How tell an absolutist from a relativist
10 years ago
Usually their stance is readily apparent. How someone morally examines an argument or situation gives you a glimpse into how they think.
Step 1: Examine there the moral authority comes from.
An absolutist denies or supports an action because it is wrong or right by an unchanging definition of good or evil.
A relativist denies or supports an action because it is right or wrong by his opinion.
Things to remember about these two stances:
No one is morally absolved because of their stance. Absolutists are usually people who treat all of their actions as something they are 100% accountable for. Relativists usually treat accountability as a "if I'm caught" situation, because accountability is not inherent to their actions, in their eyes.
Where the accountability comes from is usually dependent on where moral authority comes from.
Absolutist morality is judged by the Law-giver and others who have moral authority based upon the rule-set. Since absolutism is a requirement of any non-contradictory religion, absolutism is rooted in the belief of a God or a pantheon, who see every action. Some moral theories suggest that there is a moral intuition inherent to human beings, but the fact that humans disagree even slightly in any moral situation suggests that is incorrect.
Relativist morality has accountability managed by adherents to opinions, regardless of whether or not they match the subjects beliefs. Accountability authority comes from whoever has power, be it a government or someone with a gun or whether or not you think getting wasted and getting behind the wheel is a good idea.
The issue with relativist thinking is that it rests on a contradiction:
Truth is subjective to an individual.
This is a contradiction; the statement is an objective, and not subjective, truth. Since it is a contradiction, it must not be true.
A common criticism for absolutism is that the moral lawgiver is just another opinion.
This criticism is incorrect in that the moral lawgiver does not provide just another opinion, but instead a definition.
Step 1: Examine there the moral authority comes from.
An absolutist denies or supports an action because it is wrong or right by an unchanging definition of good or evil.
A relativist denies or supports an action because it is right or wrong by his opinion.
Things to remember about these two stances:
No one is morally absolved because of their stance. Absolutists are usually people who treat all of their actions as something they are 100% accountable for. Relativists usually treat accountability as a "if I'm caught" situation, because accountability is not inherent to their actions, in their eyes.
Where the accountability comes from is usually dependent on where moral authority comes from.
Absolutist morality is judged by the Law-giver and others who have moral authority based upon the rule-set. Since absolutism is a requirement of any non-contradictory religion, absolutism is rooted in the belief of a God or a pantheon, who see every action. Some moral theories suggest that there is a moral intuition inherent to human beings, but the fact that humans disagree even slightly in any moral situation suggests that is incorrect.
Relativist morality has accountability managed by adherents to opinions, regardless of whether or not they match the subjects beliefs. Accountability authority comes from whoever has power, be it a government or someone with a gun or whether or not you think getting wasted and getting behind the wheel is a good idea.
The issue with relativist thinking is that it rests on a contradiction:
Truth is subjective to an individual.
This is a contradiction; the statement is an objective, and not subjective, truth. Since it is a contradiction, it must not be true.
A common criticism for absolutism is that the moral lawgiver is just another opinion.
This criticism is incorrect in that the moral lawgiver does not provide just another opinion, but instead a definition.
