Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all
actions are intrinsically right or wrong.
Stealing, for instance, might be considered
to be always immoral, even if done for the
well-being of others (e.g., stealing food
to feed a starving family), and even if it
does in the end promote such a good.
Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other
categories of normative ethical theories such
as consequentialism, which holds that the
morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends
on the consequences or the context of the
act.
Moral absolutism is not the same as moral
universalism.
Universalism holds merely that what is right
or wrong is independent of custom or opinion
(as opposed to moral relativism), but not
necessarily that what is right or wrong is
independent of context or consequences (as
in absolutism).
Moral universalism is compatible with moral
absolutism, but also positions such as consequentialism.
Louis Pojman gives the following definitions
to distinguish the two positions of moral
absolutism and universalism:
Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle
that ought never to be violated.
Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the
matter as to whether any given action is morally
permissible or impermissible: a fact of the
matter that does not depend solely on social
custom or individual acceptance.Ethical theories
which place strong emphasis on rights and
duty, such as the deontological ethics of
Immanuel Kant, are often forms of moral absolutism,
as are many religious moral codes.
== Religion ==
Moral absolutism may be understood in a strictly
secular context, as in many forms of deontological
moral rationalism.
However, many religions have morally absolutist
positions as well, regarding their system
of morality as deriving from divine commands.
Therefore, they regard such a moral system
as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable.
Many secular philosophies also take a morally
absolutist stance, arguing that absolute laws
of morality are inherent in the nature of
human beings, the nature of life in general,
or the universe itself.
For example, someone who believes absolutely
in nonviolence considers it wrong to use violence
even in self-defense.
Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas never
explicitly addresses the Euthyphro dilemma,
but draws a distinction between what is good
or evil in itself and what is good or evil
because of God's commands, with unchangeable
moral standards forming the bulk of natural
law.
Thus he contends that not even God can change
the Ten Commandments, adding, however, that
God can change what individuals deserve in
particular cases, in what might look like
special dispensations to murder or steal.
== See also ==
== Notes ==
