Difference Between Ethical Relativism And Ethical Absolutism

If I were at a dinner party and someone said to me that abortion was wrong I would likely have stronger words for them than a discussion about wether or not ethics are relative. I am unable to agree to disagree about something I believe is morally correct and necessary. The person at the dinner party believes that ethics are relative so we cannot disagree about abortion, we are both right. The ethical relativist believes that there are many moral standards. They believe that, “any morality…is relative to the age, the place, and the circumstances to which it is found” (96). I would argue, however, that ethics are instead absolute. An absolutist believes that there is only one true moral code and it is the same for all people, in all places, across all times. Throughout this essay I will draw from W.T. Stace’s The Concept of Morals to prove that ethics are absolute because without one moral code we could not choose what is best, make any moral progress, or decide if abortion is right or wrong. …show more content…
Stace summarizes the difference well when he states, “the absolutist makes a distinction between what actually is right and what is thought right. The relativist rejects this distinction and identifies what is moral with what is thought moral by certain human beings or groups of human beings” (97). Though we may both think we are right about our stance on abortion, only one of us actually is. The only answer is that abortion is correct. To put the potential life of a sack of cells before the life of a woman who is already on this Earth is immoral. A woman’s right to terminate an unsafe or unwanted pregnancy is her choice and hers alone. To stand in the way of a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body is undoubtedly morally