Difference between revisions of "Moral absolutism"
(→Overview: some rewriting; Comments) |
(→Examples: notes: extreme right attitude on homosexuality) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
==Examples== | ==Examples== | ||
* 2006-06-25 [http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-06-25-1.html 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]] | * 2006-06-25 [http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-06-25-1.html 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]] | ||
| + | ==Notes== | ||
| + | This sort of thinking seems to form the basis of much of the extreme right's attitude towards [[homosexuality]], for example: homosexuals don't follow the rule ''(spelled out where?)'' that "people should want to marry members of the opposite sex", which is absolute law for all time, so therefore they aren't people. It also seems to be presumed that if you're "not a person", then you're ''less than'' or ''worse than'' a person, entitled to less respect and fewer (if any) protections. | ||
Revision as of 13:41, 2 August 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
Notes
This sort of thinking seems to form the basis of much of the extreme right's attitude towards homosexuality, for example: homosexuals don't follow the rule (spelled out where?) that "people should want to marry members of the opposite sex", which is absolute law for all time, so therefore they aren't people. It also seems to be presumed that if you're "not a person", then you're less than or worse than a person, entitled to less respect and fewer (if any) protections.