Difference between revisions of "Moral absolutism"
(→Reference: examples: OSC) |
(→Overview: some rewriting; Comments) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Overview== | ==Overview== | ||
| − | [[Category:Concepts]][[Moral absolutism]] is "the belief that there are absolute standards against which [[moral]] questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act." (-{{wpref|Moral absolutism}}) | + | [[Category:Concepts]][[Moral absolutism]] is "the belief that there are absolute standards against which [[moral]] questions can be judged, and that certain actions are [[right or wrong]], devoid of the context of the act." (-{{wpref|Moral absolutism}}) |
In other words: | In other words: | ||
* The morality of an act does not depend on the act's context | * The morality of an act does not depend on the act's context | ||
| − | * (Implied) The | + | * (Implied) The rules against which all acts are judged do not change over time |
Concepts in opposition to moral absolutism therefore include: | Concepts in opposition to moral absolutism therefore include: | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
* the idea that standards of morality can (or should) evolve when challenged by new understanding | * the idea that standards of morality can (or should) evolve when challenged by new understanding | ||
* [[moral consequentialism]], i.e. the idea that an act's morality depends solely on the ''consequences'' of that act (it's not clear whether said consequences must be the act's ''intended'' consequences as well) | * [[moral consequentialism]], i.e. the idea that an act's morality depends solely on the ''consequences'' of that act (it's not clear whether said consequences must be the act's ''intended'' consequences as well) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Most people apply these concepts in varying amounts; people who insist on applying only one set of rules in all cases tend to be regarded as extremists. | ||
| + | ==Comments== | ||
| + | I think it's entirely possible that '''there may be''' some universal standard of good and evil; I think the problem happens when people think they've reached (or been given) a perfect understanding of that standard, and therefore feel free to apply it ruthlessly. People need to be able to question whether their [[system of morality]] is applicable in a given situation, and to change it – ''refine'' it, hopefully getting closer to an absolute standard, but ''never claiming to have reached that standard'' – if it doesn't. Anything else is madness. --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 13:26, 30 July 2006 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
==Related Articles== | ==Related Articles== | ||
* [[Moral absolutism]] is a particular system of [[morality]]. | * [[Moral absolutism]] is a particular system of [[morality]]. | ||
Revision as of 17:26, 30 July 2006
Overview
Moral absolutism is "the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act." (-[W])
In other words:
- The morality of an act does not depend on the act's context
- (Implied) The rules against which all acts are judged do not change over time
Concepts in opposition to moral absolutism therefore include:
- moral relativism, which states that morality only exists relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references.
- the idea that standards of morality can (or should) evolve when challenged by new understanding
- moral consequentialism, i.e. the idea that an act's morality depends solely on the consequences of that act (it's not clear whether said consequences must be the act's intended consequences as well)
Most people apply these concepts in varying amounts; people who insist on applying only one set of rules in all cases tend to be regarded as extremists.
Comments
I think it's entirely possible that there may be some universal standard of good and evil; I think the problem happens when people think they've reached (or been given) a perfect understanding of that standard, and therefore feel free to apply it ruthlessly. People need to be able to question whether their system of morality is applicable in a given situation, and to change it – refine it, hopefully getting closer to an absolute standard, but never claiming to have reached that standard – if it doesn't. Anything else is madness. --Woozle 13:26, 30 July 2006 (EDT)
Related Articles
- Moral absolutism is a particular system of morality.
Reference
Examples
- 2006-06-25 What Is This "Crime," Really?: Orson Scott Card criticizes one of the main conservative arguments against US immigration on the grounds that it displays excessive moral absolutism