Polytechnic University of the Philippines

Sta. Mesa, Manila

College of Architecture and Fine Arts
Department of Architecture

INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
MORAL ABSOLUTISM vs. MORAL RELATIVISM

SUBMITTED TO:

PROF. PAUL BRAGA

SUBMITTED BY:
MUSNI, DYAN ALYSSA R.
BS ARCHITECTURE 4-2

Introduction
Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are
good or right and those that are bad or wrong. A person has now the freedom to judge a person
whether a man is beautiful or not, through the standards of the society. And as of today, morality
is still on debate whether be it absolute or relative. Moral relativism is the concept wherein the
judgment comes from a standard, an opinion that varies from person to person, of place and
culture. While moral absolutism is based on the universal laws and principle, the heavenly
prescribed to be mandate that instructs people what is right and a wrong deed.

GOAL AND OBJECTIVE

- To further explain and understand the concepts of morality and investigate which
is most likely to be more present as of today.

Comparative and Contrast of the Study

Absolutism is making normative ethical decisions based on objective rules. It maintains that
some things are always right and some things are always wrong. They are fixed for all time,
places and people.

PROS
Advantages of Absolutism
-

It allows moral rules to be evaluated critically.

It is fair as people are treated the same as the rules are the same for everyone.
If a moral rule is right, then there would be no need to have different rules for different
people because the absolute rules are universal.

CONS
Disadvantages of Absolutism
-

Sometimes it is not appropriate to treat people the same due to circumstances that arise
due to situations.
Life is not simply 'black and white' and as this is the case, it is simply not right to make
everyone live by the same rules.

Relativism says that nothing is intrinsically right or wrong.It is popular in the present day
because there is a belief that everyone should be tolerant towards others' beliefs and views; this
idea for freedom of speech implies that there are no real absolute truths.
Some believe that all human circumstances are different and therefore there is a need to have
different moral rules for people.

Cultural Relativism
Cultural Relativism says that different countries - or even areas within a country - have different
values, for example, Muslims expect women to cover up (at least some of) their bodies.
-

It affirms the idea 'when in Rome do as the Romans do'.

It allows there to be variety in different cultures.

However, as there are no overriding standard to compare cultures to, no one can say that one
culture is better than another because of what they believe - this could be either an advantage
or a disadvantage.
Moral truths are no more than subjective feelings about behaviour which can therefore never
achieve the status of fact as they are the result of ways of life and opinions which vary from
culture to culture or person to person depending on circumstances.
Historical Relativism
This says that what was right one hundred years ago may not be right in the present day
because times and society have moved on.
100 years ago, women did not have the vote but due to changing opinions in society they now
do and hold principal positions in parliament, etc.
Society also accepts the need to change sets of rules which used to be sufficient in previous
times.

PROS
Advantages of Relativism
-

It allows for the diversity that is present in the world.

It understands that life is not black and white.
Cultures may believe that their practices are more justifiable than other cultural
practices, but by using a relativist approach, this will allow for acceptance between
different peoples.

CONS
Disadvantages of Relativism
-

Just because there are different moral views, it doesnt necessarily mean that they are
all of equal value. For example, the Nazis believed that they were right to kill millions of
Jews, homosexuals and disabled people: surely it would be wrong to say that this had
the same worth as other moral views. Cultural Relativists would not be able to criticise
the Nazis as they believe that all cultures have views of equal worth.

Cultural Relativism also ultimately reduces the meaning of what is good to what is
socially acceptable. For example if a culture allows wife-beating, then cultural relativism
would also have to say that wife-beating is morally acceptable.

THE CONSISTENCY AND CONTRADICTIONS OF ABSOLUTISM AND RELATIVISM

For a philosophy to be valid, it must be non-contradictory; that is, it must be consistent
with its own proposal. That is not the case with relativism as it commits an error that I call "the
defining contradiction. I've picked this interesting passage by John Kekes to illustrate this error:
Suppose for the moment that relativism is right: all beliefs are cultural artifacts and they do not
conform to objective facts; they merely reflect how a culture views the world, not how the world
is. Two consequences follow, each devastating for relativists. First, if what relativists claim holds
for all beliefs, then it holds for relativism as well. It too is a cultural artifact and it does not
conform to objective facts. Relativism, then, tells us nothing about the truth; it tells us merely
what relativists have been culturally conditioned to believe about the truth. People who believe
that relativism is false because some beliefs do conform to objective facts are also culturally
conditioned. In that case, however, there is no more reason to be a relativist than to be an antirelativist, since neither is a matter of reason at all. Both depend on the cultural conditioning to
which people have been subject. It would, then, be just as wrong for relativists to try to impose
their views on defenders of "Western civ," the canon, the classics, the objectivity of science, and
the authority of teachers over students as relativists say it is wrong for anti-relativists to impose
their views. If relativists attempt to defend their position by claiming that it is not culturally
conditioned but actually true, then they cannot consistently maintain their central claim that the
truth does not exist. It must exist if they have found it."
In other words, relativists defend their theory as an absolute. But if we accept it as correct, they
are claiming a relative assumption. Relativists claim that truth lies in the individual's perception;
however, they are claiming it as an absolute; yet, at the same time, they are claiming that
absolutes don't exist. Therefore, it is a contradiction.
Contrast this with absolutism. It doesn't have any contradiction in this respect. Absolutists claim
that truth lies in reality, and reality is objective (i.e., not based on personal bias). They defend
this assumption as an absolute, acknowledging that they can prove it through objective
facts/observable phenomena.
Another important point to consider is the self-sufficiency of reality in order to determine which
theory is accurate. Reality, in-and-of-itself, is self-sufficient. What does that mean? It means that
reality exists as a whole, regardless our own capacity to understand and determine it. For
example: a person in a coma can't consciously perceive reality and, therefore, can't establish
any definition of it.
But does reality stop existing when someone is in a coma? Certainly not. If it stopped existing,
there wouldn't be hospitals to take care of this person, nor doctors, nor any factor of reality. This
proves that truth comes from objective facts. The human capability to acknowledge truth lies in
the recognition of reality, and this process is part of the objective aspect of existence.
Therefore, an absolutist philosophy will be internally consistent because it is based on this
stable and self-sufficient reality.

Conclusion
In my own opinion, thinking in relativist terms is a better concept of morality. For me,
being good and socially acceptable are two different things. For example, Relativism can take
into account the reasons why something happens. Absolutists would have to condemn a mother
who steals food for her starving children because in their eyes all stealing is wrong, whereas
Relativists can say stealing is wrong usually but as the mother needed to feed her children,
what she did was right and should therefore not be condemned.
Absolutism is like dictatorship. We are only allowed to follow the rules and regulations provided.
We do not have any freedom to let our voices out. Yet, with this there is a chance of better way
of living because people will be disciplined through this method.
But still, through Relativism, people can learn to accept others culture and tradition, though
diverse to each other, if we have this way of thinking. Maybe through this, there is a chance of
peace around the globe.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
http://thevr.net/2013/09/20/moral-absolutism-vs-moral-relativism/
http://www.revisionworld.com/a2-level-level-revision/religious-studies-levelrevision/ethics/absolutism-and-relativism