morally speaking, are you a relativist, or an absolutist?

Question

and why do you hold that position?

Answer 1

Relativist by dissociation.

Absolutist if provoked.

Answer 2

Absolutist, because truth is unalterable. Nothing anyone says can change the fact that A is A.

However, the meaning of an act cannot be separated from its circumstance--no more than the meaning of a word can be separated from the context in which it was spoken/written. So I would not say "slavery is always wrong." I would define slavery as a specific act under a specific circumstance and say *that* is always wrong. This is not, in my view, relativism--this is specificity.

Lying is always wrong, but a white lie is not lying. A white lie is a completely different act.

In addition, being morally wrong is not always wrong. Sometimes morally wrong action is necessary. In such cases, rationality trumps morality every time.

Answer 3

Mostly I'm a relativist. Most acts can be viewed in different contexts, time periods or situations. For example, stealing is wrong. But stealing food to feed a starving child is not as wrong and may even be right. Murder is wrong, but killing someone in self-defense may not be wrong. War is wrong, but under certain circumstances, it is not wrong.

However, with certain moral issues, I can be an absolutist. For instance, I think bigotry and homophobia are always wrong, no matter the circumstance. I think slavery is always wrong. I think allowing people to wander the streets homeless and in need of mental treatment is always wrong.

I think God takes into consideration different degrees of sin. I understand that many believe sin is sin. But we are told that God is merciful. I think part of His mercifulness would be that he would not view stealing a pencil as seriously as murdering 25 people in a school. I think He would take these differences into consideration when judging us.

Answer 4

Im relativist . What is true for me doesnt need to be true for other person. Each one has different visions of the world because we are al different individuals with different experiences in life.

For that reason, I think everything in this life is relative. It depends on what u compare it to, on the context and circumstances, background.... there are many factors.

I believe in 'looking at the different viewpoint', or trying to undestand the other side of the question. In this way I always find it easier to manage difficult situations, avoid useless arguments, or understand people from different backgrounds (eg, another completely different culture).

However, in certain things, Ill always be an absolute. One of them is killing. There is no reason for killing anybody. Not even punishment. For me, the stoning or lapidation they do in some eastern countries, is the same bad as the death penalty in the States.

Answer 5

I believe in situation ethics. Every situation needs to be evaluated on its merits and not based on absolutes or past precedences.

"Situation ethics is a Christian ethical theory that was principally developed in the 1960s by the Episcopal priest Joseph Fletcher. It basically states that sometimes other moral principles can be cast aside in certain situations if love is best served; as Paul Tillich once put it: 'Love is the ultimate law’.

The moral principles Fletcher is specifically referring to are the moral codes of Christianity and the type of love he is specifically referring to is 'Agape' love. Agapē is a term which comes from Greek which means absolute, universal, unchanging and unconditional love for all people. Fletcher believed that in forming an ethical system based on love, he was best expressing the notion of 'love thy neighbour', which Jesus Christ taught in the Gospels of the New Testament of the Bible.

Through Situation Ethics, Fletcher attempted to find a 'middle road' between legalistic and antinomian ethics. Fletcher developed Situation Ethics in his books: The Classic Treatment and Situation Ethics." This is as it says on Wikipedia. I personally like think "love" or "agape" can be replaced with fairness or common sense and still be effective as a means of making moral decisions.

"Situation ethics relativises the absolute, it does not absolute the relative."
- Joseph Fletcher
Situation Ethics: The New Morality

Answer 6

Relatively absolutist.

Specific cases make the ideal absolutist positions impractical, but they remain the ideal - and hence the starting point - the alpha if not the omega.

Answer 7

I am a moral absolutist because I believe God exists.

Answer 8

In almost every aspect I'm an absolute relativist...as all concepts are subjective and relative.

However, I feel there are some universal absolutes, e.g., killing another human is wrong, even in self-defense, as you can maim someone (in self-defense) to the point that they can no longer attack you. Pedophilia is wrong. But those are merely my opinions an beliefs. It doesn't make them "right' for anyone but me.

Answer 9

Absolutist, take a stance stick with, make a choice stick with. you'll be able to sleep better.