There are no moral absolutes Essay Example for Free

T here(predicate) atomic number 18 no deterrent example secures EssayMoral absolutism is the survey that morale standards atomic number 18 unchanging and universal. On the opposite side of the spectrum there is a relativist approach. Relativists believe that moral claims be true or fictional depending on the moral standpoint. These opposing viewpoints can bring about great societal and political debates hitherto in the modern geezerhood.Recent examples include the attempt to legalise euthanasia in the UK and the protest to give rid of abortion laws in the Republic of Ireland. Both of these land sites be trying to legalise specific forms of absent. An absolutisticic in this situation will argue that all killing is misemploy therefore current laws are right, whereas a relativist would look at specific standpoints, such as quality of manner for euthanasia. In this try out I will attempt to explore both sides of the argument coming to my conclusion that relativism i s a original standpoint and that there are no moral absolutes.Some absolutist people disagree with the above statement about moral absolutes. This is because absolutism is a deontological argument which judges the morality of an put to death base on the actions appliance to rules. For Christians these rules might link back to the Ten Commandments. One of which is thou shalt not murder, this clearly and undeniably is an unbreakable law in the eyes of an absolutist. Another argument for their being moral absolute is that of a criticism to relativist acts. By Relativist thinking it is quite easy to come to the conclusion that thraldom was a perfectly moral thing to do. To an absolutist, slavery did not become immoral when it was abolished, it was simply of all time immoral and being imposed by immoral governments.Per Contra the relativist approach has been backed by many a philosopher including the famous Empiricist, John Locke. Locke believed that absolutes were an abomination fr om his religious standpoint. He believed this because Absolutism subjected people to abide by absolute rules set by other people at some point. This goes against his belief that all people were created fitted by God. By enforcing Absolutism we raise our rule imposing be giveners to a God similar Status of which no man should be. Furthermore this goes against the fist commandment that men should serve God entirely if we serve a ruler we can then not worship God.Another argument for Relativism is that absolutist moral standards, in some circumstances can lead onto extreme evils. The famous example that illustrates this is that of a crazed axe-murderer coming to your front door and asking you where your tykeren are. Now a relativist could lie based on the circumstances thus saving his children whereas an absolutist must tell the murderer where the children are with full companionship that they will be killed, thus allowing an heretofore greater evil to be committed, they could e ven be called an accessory to the murder of their own children.Furthermore there cannot be moral absolutes as eventually they will contravene each other. For example, Jewish doctors in the Holocaust performed abortions to prevent women from being sent to the gas chambers. Two rules here are conflicting. One of which is that Doctors should not perform abortions and another that Doctors should try and save lives. Either way from an absolutist standpoint the doctor will be doing the wrong thing, but a relativist approach allows us to absolve this.On the other hand, there may have to be moral absolutes, because if everything is relativists then how do we resolve what rules to abide by. If two folkss cross paths on a Sunday and one of which believes that a sacrifice should be made on Sunday whereas the other tribe does not, if the first tribe then sacrifices a genus Phallus of the other tribe, it that then morally right or wrong. A relativist would say that it is right for the firs t tribe but wrong for the second. But how can society work based on right for me, wrong for you system without falling into moral conflict and chaos. Moreover, some relativist arguments when further analysed have absolutist roots, proving there are moral absolutes.For example, the Eskimo practice of leaving fe virile infants out to die as so coming(prenominal) male hunters could thrive appeared to be a significant disagreement between their moral systems and ours therefore seeming to disown the universal approach of Absolutism. But when dug deeper, given the hardships of the Eskimos to survive and limited resources for excerpt, keeping every child jells the whole family at risk. So there is actually a fundamental moral value of preserving life that we share with the Eskimos. The only difference being that they have to make choices based on what they value more or less (future hunters), these choices we do not have to face.This said the Eskimo example is likewise a benefactor t he relativist approach of situation ethics. Joseph Fletcher, founder of situation ethics argued that in certain situations, absolutist principle have to be put to one side in baseball club to do the right thing. He believed that absolutism didnt lead to the best of most loving outcome, and the best thing to do may be to break a rule. Utilitarian also reject moral absolutes and focus more on consequences. They believe that the right action is the one that brings the most pleasure and the least pain. Sometimes this may admit Killing in rule to save more lives. For Jeremy Bentham, there was no rule he would not break in order to bring about greater happiness.In short if there are no moral absolutes we are left with a Relativist state of mind. This is the belief that moral reasoning is a matter of taste and purview and is subjective and relative to time and culture. Leading to conclusions such as the killing of Eskimo girls to be morally counteract and the act of abortion by a World War 2 doctor also to be moral. Whereas if there are moral absolutes than the same moral rules are applicable all across the gentleman and throughout history. These rules may be some form of innate knowledge or come from the immortal of God and do not change as opinion does. Meaning that if slavery comes back into path and is agreed upon to be good, it does not make it morale.In conclusion, I hold a relativist point of view because different cultures have to adapt to live in their surroundings. Extreme measures are often taken for survival which to us in western society would seem abhorrent however it is for the greater good of future generations. I very much believe that ends justify the means therefore making me a Consequentialist even if rules such as absolutist murder have to be broken. Finally morale absolutes can also seem cruel, for example branding Euthanasia as murder makes people live their final days in unimaginable pain, whereas a relativist approach could give people a dignified end to their life, is that not moral.