• Philosophy -> Ethics and Morality

• 0 Comment

How does moral absolutism differ from other ethical frameworks such as utilitarianism or deontology?

Frederica Jodrelle

Well hello there fellow internet dwellers, let's get down and dirty with the age-old question of morality and ethics. Today, we take a closer look at how moral absolutism stands out among other ethical frameworks such as utilitarianism or deontology.

First, let's define what each of these fancy schmancy terms mean. Utilitarianism states that the moral worth of an action is determined by its usefulness in promoting happiness and reducing suffering for the majority. Think of it as the "greatest good for the greatest number" philosophy. Deontology, on the other hand, places importance on the intention behind an action rather than the consequences. This means that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of the outcome.

Now, let's dive into moral absolutism. This approach to ethics emphasizes that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of the situation or context. It states that moral truths are universal and unchanging. In other words, there are certain things that are always wrong, no matter what. For example, murder is always wrong, whether you're doing it to save others or for personal gain.

So how does moral absolutism differ from the other two frameworks? Well, utilitarianism and deontology focus more on the consequences or intentions of an action, while moral absolutism places greater emphasis on the action itself. It doesn't matter if the consequences of an action are good or bad, if the action itself is inherently wrong, then it is always wrong.

Another way to think about it is to imagine a game of chess. Utilitarianism and deontology would be focused on winning the game, either by making the most advantageous moves or by following the rules meticulously. Moral absolutism, on the other hand, would be focused on following certain basic rules of the game, even if it meant losing. For example, if you were to cheat or break a rule in chess, a moral absolutist would say that it's always wrong, regardless of whether it would help you win or not.

In conclusion, moral absolutism may seem a bit rigid and unforgiving, but it's a valuable perspective to have when it comes to ethics and morality. It forces us to examine our actions and consider whether they are truly right or wrong, regardless of the consequences or intentions. And hey, if you're ever playing a game of chess with a moral absolutist, you can be sure that they'll play fair and square. So, what do you think? Does moral absolutism sound like the right approach to you? Let us know in the comments below!