Difference Between Relativism And Objectivism

741 Words 3 Pages
Relativism vs. Objectivism
There are two different theories dealing with morality, what is right or wrong, and what is good or bad. The theories discussed will be, ethical relativism and ethical objectivism. Ethical relativism is defined as having no absolute stance on a position; there is no right or wrong. Ethical objectivism which claims that some moral rules really are correct. What would it mean for ethics if there were no absolutes? The answer would mean the relativist would change the entire meaning of ethics. Both relativism and objectivism are debated as to which is morally correct. I will discuss both theories and give my opinion on which theory I hold. Both will be discussed and my opinion will be provided on which I hold to be morally correct.
Ethical relativism is the view that “some moral rules really are correct, and that these determine which moral claims are true and which false.”
…show more content…
No matter what we think or believe, things are what they are because that is how they exist in the universe. There is a higher power who says what is morally good and how we should live our lives.
If I had to respond to an opposing argument, I would have to say that you cannot have a cookie cutter approach to morality. Society needs rules to function because they are absolutes, providing a structure we can all live by. Without rules you have conflict, with conflict you have chaos, and when you have chaos you live in a dangerous world.
I spoke about the two theories of moral standards: Ethical relativism and Ethical objectivism. The theory of Ethical Objectivism is one that I relate to because some rules are correct, and these determine which moral claims are true and which are false. No matter what we think or believe, things are what they are because that is how they exist in the

Related Documents

Related Topics