ABSOLUTISM VS RELATIVISM 2

One of the ethical philosophies which are believed and have been practiced by the worlds
greatest leaders is the philosophy of absolutism and relativism. In essence, these two philosophies
share one common factor and that is to establish morality. However, they differ greatly in that one
bases and subjects morality to culture, society, and historical contexts while the other accepts
established moral values, and principles which are not relative to culture, society or historical events.
However, in this paper we will be discussing the typical arguments philosophers offer for relativism
and absolutism and also a few historical facts that led to the development of these two philosophies.
Moreovertoward the end of the paperthe philosophy of relativism and absolutism will be
criticized.
Perhaps one of the most logical, simplistic, and popular morality positions in the United
States would be the philosophy of relativism. This position offers a rather uninvolved approach to
moral principles. Interestingly enough, relativism is linked to consequentialism in that both moral
theories ultimately are subjective to other factors whether it be social and cultural or consequences.
According to Sinnott-Armstrong, he states that a moral theory should not categorized as
consequentialist unless it is narrowed to the definition of agent-neutral. Sinnott-Armstrong states the
following: this narrower definition is motivated by the fact that many self-styled critics of
consequentialism argue against agent-neutrality (2003). Furthermore, Sinnot-Armstrong goes on to
state other philosophers such as Bennet and Broome prefer a more broad definition of
consequentialism. To achieve this, they use a definition which does not require the theory to be
agent-neutral in order to be categorized as consequentialist. Therefore, in order to efficiently
communicate, we will establish a narrower definition on which we can all agree. In essence, we will
be disusing consequentialism but more specifically relativism, that while it is still consequentialist, its
morality is subjective to society, culture, and historical contexts.

ABSOLUTISM VS RELATIVISM 3