What is the Difference Between Absolutism and Relativism?

Ethical Absolutism and Ethical Relativism are two contrasting positions in ethics that concern the existence of objective moral values and principles.

Ethical Absolutism:

Argues for the existence of objective values and intrinsically moral acts.
Maintains that there are moral principles that are always valid and correct.
Believes that moral principles are universally binding to all people, at all times, and in all places.
Examples of Absolutism include Kantian Ethics and various formulations of the "Golden Rule".
Advantages: Allows moral rules to be evaluated critically, treats people fairly as the rules are the same for everyone, and provides a clear standard for moral decisions.
Disadvantages: Can be seen as intolerant to views of others, may not be appropriate in all situations due to varying circumstances, and life is not simply 'black and white'.

Ethical Relativism:

Holds that moral values are relative to some further instance.
Asserts that moral principles are not universally binding.
Believes that moral values are influenced by factors such as culture, upbringing, and personal experiences.
Can take into account the reasons behind actions and evaluate moral rules critically.
Advantages: Acknowledges the influence of context and individual circumstances, and can be more tolerant of diverse views and practices.
Disadvantages: Can lead to moral confusion and relativism, may not provide a clear standard for moral decisions, and can be difficult to evaluate moral rules critically.

In summary, the main difference between Absolutism and Relativism lies in their views on the nature of moral principles: Absolutism believes in the existence of fixed and universal moral truths, while Relativism acknowledges the influence of context and individual circumstances on moral values and principles.