Absolutism And Absolute Objectivism

One should stand up for what they believe is right, even if the law is against it. By standing up for your beliefs, you fulfill your public and self duty. Laws aren’t always morally correct, so it is one’s public duty to amend the laws for the good of society. Public duty, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is to ¨throw off such government¨ when it is enforcing morally wrong laws. The laws may be unfair to a group of people.

The second major part of Mackie?s article convincingly undermines the plausibility of the realist belief in independent and objective values. Mackie attacks the belief from two major angles, the origin of objectivity-laden morals and the supposed nature of objective values, each of which is really a two-pronged approach.

Around 1982, Swami Krishnananda wrote, "There is an intensive urge to solidify matter into a localised existence, which is what we call the ego." Throughout his collected works, he describes the ego, as a form of energy converging onto a single point, similar to the eye of a hurricane. This force or feeling that we exist as independent entities, which we are drawn to re-affirm at every turn, binds us to this focal point in space-time, while it maintains an air of separation from the cosmos in the deepest parts of our minds.

Nevertheless, absolutism still has the pros and cons, and pros would be; the aristocracies can get whatever they want, but peasants get nothing; only monotheism was allowed; poor

Are we morally obliged to obey even unjust laws? This moral question addresses what we commonly know as civil disobedience. In order to properly discuss civil disobedience and whether or not it is moral to disobey laws, we must first characterize civil disobedience. In Peter Singer's book, Practical Ethics he begins to characterize civil disobedience as arising from "ethical disagreement" and raising the question of whether "to uphold the law, even if the law protects and sanctions things we hold utterly wrong?" (Singer 292).

"Moral Objectivism: The view that what is right or wrong doesn"t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts ' are like 'physical ' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are. Objectivist theories tend to come in two sorts:"(1)

Breaking the law is morally justifiable and acceptable when the law in itself is iniquitous and if that law violates human rights and conscience; Certainly, rules are established for us to follow but we as human beings should be able to differentiate the right and the wrong and incase laws need to be violated for the right cause even with hard consequences, breaking the law can be justified; considering the situations and the purposes.

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." Martin Luther King's words, which just correspond with the above assertion, perfectly tell us what to do in face of laws, either just or unjust.

A discussion of moral theories must begin with a discussion of the two extremes of ethical thinking, absolutism and relativism. Moral Absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards where moral questions are judged and can be deemed right or wrong, regardless of the context. Steadfast laws of the universe, God, nature itself are the forces that deem an action right or wrong. A person’s actions rather than morals and motivations are important in an Absolutism proposition. Moral Relativism states, that the moral propositions are based on Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the

Ethical relativism and ethical absolutism are two differing theories on how we ought to or ought not to decide on right from wrong. We question and evaluate morality in the terms of right and wrong constantly throughout life. The moral values that we decide to indoctrinate into our everyday lives are strongly motivated by cultural constraints in the eyes of some, to include anthropologist Dr. Ruth Benedict. Ethical relativism is defined as moral values being strongly dependent on time, place, and standards of a given culture. A contrasting theory to relativism is absolutism. The concept of a single, unwavering moral code used by all humans universally is absolutism. Dr. Christina Hoff-Sommers is an American philosopher who supports the idea of basic moral values and virtues based on absolutism. As humans we all have a duty to treat each other with a baseline of morality, while striving to improve character within our cultural environments.

Ban animal cruelty! Give aid to the poor! Save the rainforests! Obey the law! As a human race we must strive to fulfill these commands, for they are our moral duties and obligations. Our obligation to morality sometimes leads to a dilemma. What happens when a law contradicts the morally right thing to do? Would it be moral to act illegally by breaking the law? No matter how drastic the measure, we are still required to act morally--even if one must break the law to do so. But why is it so important to be moral that one could justify something as serious as breaking the law?

To summarize a little about ethical relativism it is based on what the person or society would believe to be morally correct without any influence from outsiders, ethical objectivism is mainly based on facts and sound reasoning that even if we weren’t here to witness it, it would still happen. Ethical objectivism is just plain simple facts, for instance if a tree fell in the woods even though we aren’t there, it would still make a crashing sound as it fell to the forest bed.

The ethical theory of moral absolutism has raised many arguments since Plato produced the Theory of the Forms. Philosophers have argued over it for centuries; whether it is correct, whether we should be absolutists or relativists or whether we bypass both of these theories and decide our actions based on virtuous people.

Morality seeks to provide a moral agreement that binds the people in a society by providing a blueprint of shared values that dictate what is right and wrong. The two principles of morality are moral objectivism and moral relativism. The thesis of this essay is that moral relativism is a better guide to morality as compared to moral objectivity as it puts things into perspective by considering moral ideas and variables on a universal understanding.

When people aren't following the law it doesn't mean that they are doing something that could harm someone; it could be something that wouldn't have no harm no foul. When you don’t follow every law it doesn't make you a bad person. I don't believe everyone follows every law because there are too many laws that we don't really know. Breaking a law that has done no harm doesn't make you a bad person.