Adela

Montoya

ABS 305
10-18-16
Cristofre Kayser

The Differences Between Absolutism and Relativism And

Pluralistic.

I am going to explain the difference between absolutist and relativist ethics.

According to the ethics book, the Absolutist theory is the theory that certain things are
right or wrong from an objective point of view and cannot change according to culture.
However, certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, which means they are right or
wrong in themselves. This is also known as deontological. For example, many religions
have morally absolutist positions, and regard their system of morality and Christians
regards to Christian theology as teaching a hierarchy of moral absolutes known as graded
absolutism, where in the case of a conflict between two absolutes, the duty to obey
the higher one (God) exempts one from the duty to the lower ones (fellow humans or,
still lower, property). Also, a divine Command theory is an absolutist meta-ethical theory
that an act is obligatory if (and only if) it is commanded by God (William of Ockham)
argued that if God had commanded murder, then murder would indeed have been morally
obligatory. I consider this as three different accounts of the relationship between religion
and reason in ethics:

Religion takes priority over reason and Divine command theories of Teleological
suspension of the ethical Compatibility theories Autonomy of reason theories.

Sometimes, Moral Absolutism can mean the more extreme position that actions are moral
or immoral even regardless of the circumstances in which they occur (e.g. lying
is always be immoral, even if done to promote some other good, such as to save a life). In
this form, it can be contrasted with Consequentially (in which a morally right action is
one that produces a good consequence or outcome, regardless of the intentions).

However, the relativist theory is the theory that there are no universally valid
moral principles. In fact, all principles and values are relative to a particular culture or
age. An Ethical relativism means that there is no such thing as good in itself, but if an
action seems good to you and bad to me, that is it, and there is no objective basis for us to
discover the truth. This theory is also known as teleological. An example of an absolutist
ethical system would be if a single mother with a very young child had no money and
therefore no food to feed the child, and she stole some food from the shop and the mother
was caught and had a trial, an absolutist would argue that its morally wrong to steal and
should suffer the consequences of the crime. They dont take into account the situation
the person might be in and use an absolute law. However, this is in contrast to the
alternative ethical system, called relativist, because this system is really the complete
opposite. Again Ill use the same example as I did for absolutist. If a relativist was
looking at this they would take into consideration the situation the woman might be in
and empathize with her and try to find an outcome that is the most fair. The one reason to

support the absolutist approach as the only defensible approach is that it provides
justification for acting, which means that morality seems to demand some sort of
obligation. I think if theres a fixed moral code then there is no obligation to act in a way.
Another Strength is that it gives clear guidelines, which basically means the rules are
fixed and clear to apply. In contrast to these strengths, there are weaknesses to...
Although, Ethical pluralism offers three categories to describe actions:
first, Prohibited: those actions, which are not seen as permissible at all, and Absolutism
sees the importance of this instead. Second, Tolerated: those actions and values in which
legitimate differences are possible. And Relativism sees the importance of this. Last but
least, deal: a moral vision of what the ideal society would be like. As a student, I found
that neither relativism nor absolutism was satisfactory. Even though, I found myself
looking for something in between these two extremes.

Also, I am going explain the differences between consequentiality and categorical

ethical systems. Consequentiality is (a type of teleological theory) ethics judges the
rightness or wrongness of an action based on the consequences that action has. The most
familiar example would be utilitarianism: the action is best that produces the greatest
good for the greatest number," (Jeremy Bentham).

A non-consequentiality theory (Deontological theory) judges the rightness or wrongness

of an action based on properties intrinsic to the action - not it's consequences.

However, The categorical imperative is Kant's theory that says people's morality can be

summed up in one ultimate commandment of reason, or imperative, from which all duties
and obligations derive - he said: a categorical imperative denotes an absolute,
unconditional requirement that asserts its authority in all circumstances, both required
and justified as an end in itself; best known as: Act only according to that maxim,
whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." An
example in Libertarianism "People should be free to do as they like as long as they
respect the freedom of others to do the same." I strongly believe not all people believe
that concept; however they still believe they can do whatever they please and not thinking
of others respect. I know this has been a big issue with our world and has brought major
wrong consequences in our present.
For example, I would have thought that by far the greatest uncertainty concerns the future
implications of climate change and relate to the things that we dont know, rather than
what we do know (or partially know).
I believe the climate is subject to any number of variables that cant adequately be
predicted in advance, it is, after all, a chaotic system. To give you an example, until
recently we werent aware that global warming would have such a significant impact on
Ross by Waves (a type of wind). In turn these waves have increased in intensity and are
now regularly opposing the jet stream, this is causing massive weather disruption around
the world.
In fact, in recent years the jet stream has been at the centre of more extreme weather
events than anything else. Its a factor in the current US heat wave and was by far the
dominant force that led to the Russian heat wave in 2010 and the Pakistani floods that
same year. However, human influence on future climates is also of great significance

whether India and China pass Clean Air Acts, if we take steps to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, if we overcome the nuclear fusion containment issue etc. Also, another area
that isnt particularly well understood at present concerns the thermohaline circulation.
Intact, there are opposing theories as to how these currents may be affected as the climate
warms up. Although, One argument says that the introduction of cold melt water from the
Polar Regions will increase the density of the ocean in the affected areas; this will
provide greater resistance against the currents, which could lead to truncation, deflection
or divergence. As a result, this opposing is the notion that decreased salinity caused by
mixing with the fresh melt water, will decrease the density of the ocean and thus allow
for acceleration of the currents at the point of pole ward overturning. However, this
would speed up the movement of the currents at one end whilst the feed-in mechanism at
the other end would be unchanged. To my ability this is a clearly such a situation
couldnt be maintained you cant take more out at one end than you put in at the other.
More over, this could lead to the collapse or weakening of the affected currents. The
THC situation is compounded by the fact that the network of currents is interlinked. If
one is affected it will have a knock-on effect on the others. At the moment we dont
really have a clue what might happen. According to scientists, historical evidence shows
that the North Atlantic Conveyor has changed in the past and that following this there
have been changes to the other ocean currents, but theres no consistency in the changes
and therefore we have little to base future predictions on. This is an area in which more
research is being undertaken but I suspect it will be 20 to 50 years before we know
enough about the THC to predict with any accuracy how it may be affected. Whether or
not changes in the THC are significant depends very much on what happens and where it

happens. The most likely scenario is that the Gulf Stream is affected (its the one thats
been most influenced by past climatic changes) and may well divert in a more easterly
direction. This would plunge parts of Europe into another ice age but at the same time
would open up vast tracts of agricultural land in Greenland. Another major uncertainty
concerns something called suprapermafrost telic. Add to it, Climate scientists had long
predicted that wed see these occurring but quite what the consequence will be remains
unclear. However, this type of telic occurs in warming permafrost regions and results in
stratification of the ground following the formation of an additional layer beneath the
frozen surface, which is neither frozen nor thawed (its warming which inhibits the usual
seasonal refreezing). The heat transferred from the SPT layer may or may not be enough
to enhance further melting. If it does then we could see methane released on an
unprecedented scale. Although long predicted, its not until recently that SPT have begun
to appear in Siberia and Russia. Until now the scientists didnt have anything in the real
world that they could actually study. Research currently being conducted should, in the
next few years, provide many answers; but for now this is a grey area.

As to the specific question of which is the significant ethical system, Id say its the
unknown consequences of climate change. Because its such a sensitive system it doesnt
take much to cause disruption, and with each passing year there are new manifestations
coming to light that no one predicted. I believe the worst-case scenario is that when the
temperature gets to X it acts as a trigger that sets in motion an irreversible sequence of
unforeseen events. However, it might not sound really as an ethical issue, but I believe
this is the most significant ethical issue in the world today.

References:
https://prezi.com/xm8pzwemguzi/ethical-relativism-absolutism-pluralism/
http://downloads.globalchange.gov/ocp/oc.
http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Courses/Theory/Fall2003/Phil_%20120,%20Fall,%202003%20
Schedule.html
http: P//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categori...