Ethical Relativism Vs Moral Objectivism

Ethics is strongly based on morality. Bioethics is one of the more difficult topics when it comes to morals due to the fact that it can be a determining factor in suffering and pain and healthiness and relief but it is unavoidable. Morality is defined as "people's moral judgments principal rules standards and theories". Whereas ethics is defined as being a logical way to explore the meaning and origin of moral concepts and evaluating the virtue of moral judgements. So although they go hand and hand with each other the two are not the same. There are many different views of morality. There is the moral objectivism view, which states that there are general moral principles that apply to everyone. Then there is the moral absolutism view which is basically the same thing as moral objectivism but in …show more content…
For example, during the holocaust it was illegal to harbour Jewish people. A moral objectivist would break this law in order to save a life, in a way choosing the lesser of two evils. Whereas a moral absolutist wouldn't take heed to the moral dilemma and would turn the all Jewish people over to the authorities. Another view of morality is the ethical relativism view. This view states that moral principles are not generalized, but instead are relative to what a person or a culture believe in. Ethical relativism is them broken down even further into subjective relativism and cultural relativism. Subjective relativism being the view that an action is morally right if the person doing the action believes it is and cultural relativism being that view that an action is right if that is the belief of the culture of the person doing the action. Both subjective relativism and cultural relativism imply that one cannot question another's morals, making moral disagreements non-existent. For example, if a Nazi tells Jewish person that he believes that all Jewish people should be killed and the Jewish person then goes on to say that