Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Moral absolutism – the idea that moral norms are eternal, unchangeable and do not depend on the opinions of people.
Its opposite is moral relativism – the idea that each person sets such norms for himself, that what is moral for one person can be immoral for another, and we cannot consider any morality as universal or should be such.
Relativism should not be confused with consequentialism – it is an ethical theory in which not actions are ethical, but their consequences.
Consequentialism is contrasted with deontology, the ethics of duty – actions are bad or good in themselves, regardless of the consequences.
The case of the Khachaturian sisters has already been cited as an example here, and I will analyze it.
A moral absolutist-consequentialist can say that freedom from the despot, getting rid of the villain, is an absolute good, always and everywhere, so since the result of the sisters ' actions was their freedom and the death of the villain, they did well.
A moral absolutist deontologist would say that killing is bad, always and everywhere, so by killing a person, the sisters have committed an absolute evil.
They might have judged their actions differently, because absolutism itself does not impose restrictions on what norms are considered absolute.
And the moral relativists would tell us the same thing as these two comrades, only adding first “in my opinion”, which, in my opinion, would deprive their opinion of any significance in this matter. If the relativist himself doesn't think that his morality is good enough to be universal, why should we listen to him?
A month ago, a high-profile crime occurred in Moscow – three sisters killed their father.
From the point of view of moral absolutism, this is bad. You can't kill people.
From the point of view of moral relativism, we must look at the context of what happened. And in this context, there is a cruel and bestial attitude of the father to his daughters, beatings, humiliation and rape, as well as a complete lack of help and support, including from law enforcement agencies. Then did the sisters act so “badly” in this situation?