Which is more disturbing: Moral Relativism or Moral Absolutism?

Answer 1

The absolutism.All is relative...so the moral relativism is not disturbing...is normal

Answer 2

Both can be: Extreme Moral relativism means anarchy and Extreme Morel Absolutism means facsism. The moral policy that works most often is respect and protection of individual rights

Answer 3

There's nothing wrong with being an absolutist about basic principles, for example a belief that every human ought to be treated with respect. You may believe that we are all created equal, and that we all have a right to be alive.

You might still apply these principles differently depending on what kind of society you live in. Having respect for people often entails acting in differently in one country than another.

However, on this basis you can challenge cultures foreign to your own if they do abuse those basic principles, for example a culture that persecutes women or ethnic minorities.

Being absolute about certain foundational principles doesn't have to mean being closed minded or blind to the subtleties of specific issues, and it doesn't stop you from acknowledging differences between cultures - it may even oblige you to have respect for different cultures.

Answer 4

OMG Mr. Nerdlinger don't get me started with this question. I would say Moral Absolutism. People need to just face the music.

Answer 5

any notion on morals will be disturbing, i found nietzsche's genealogy of moral a lot more refreshing

Answer 6

both are legalistic , forms of control. Love is the only attempt we have at transcending the rules

Answer 7

They both disturb me equally.

Answer 8

Both miss the point as far as I'm concerned.

Answer 9

Complete idiocy.

Answer 10

"Sin is geographical." -Bertrand Russell

Absolutism would be more out of place.