Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article on absolutism Moral absolutism presupposes objectivism – the doctrine that moral principles are true or justified, regardless of someone`s belief that they are true or justified. This is because conventional moral codes cannot have universal validity – because they are only true to the extent that they are considered true. Second, although moral absolutism advocates that they constitute a set of universally valid moral principles, it is not obligated to say that anyone currently knows this universal moral code. Thus, although a moral absolutist claims that there is only one appropriate moral code and that everyone should live according to him, he does not need to pretend that the code is known. However, it probably must be recognizable, and once it is discovered, everyone is morally obligated to live according to it. However, the reader is warned that absolutists often write as if they were familiar with some of these principles, and at least one contemporary writer characterizes absolutism as opposed to the “knowledge” of an absolute moral code (see Cook 1999). In a minority of cases, moral absolutism is placed in the more limited position that actions are moral or immoral, regardless of the circumstances in which they occur. Lying, for example, would always be immoral, even if it is done to promote another good (for example, saving a life). This rare view of moral absolutism could be juxtaposed with moral consequentialism–the idea that the morality of an action depends on the context or consequences of that action. As a theory, absolutism emerged in Europe, and especially in France, in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries in response to the long civil wars between the crown and nobility known as the Wars of Religion.
In the late eighteenth century, when the reform movement associated with the Enlightenment began to influence most European leaders, a form of so-called “enlightened absolutism” (or sometimes “enlightened despotism”) emerged. The absolute authority of the sovereign was not intended to strengthen the power of the state, but rather was used to promote the well-being of his subjects. The term “absolutism” describes a form of government in which the authority of the ruler is not subject to any theoretical or legal constraints. In the language of Roman law – which played a central role in all theories of absolutism – the sovereign was legibus solutus or “unrestricted legislator”. Absolutism is generally used, but not exclusively, to describe European monarchies and in particular those of France, Spain, Russia and Prussia between the middle of the sixteenth century and the end of the eighteenth century. But a form of absolutism existed in almost all European states until the end of the eighteenth century. There were also recognizable forms of absolute domination in China and Japan. Moral absolutism in our first sense is opposed to moral relativism, which denies that there are moral principles that have universal application.
On the contrary, according to relativist, moral principles apply locally, that is, only to groups of people who accept them. To understand the conflict between absolutism and relativism, it is important to distinguish the question of “universal applicability” from “universal acceptance.” The relativist does not deny that it is possible (or even real) that moral principles can be accepted by all. What he denies is that these principles would also apply to people who have not accepted them. Suppose, for example, that as a result of globalization, everyone in the world has (approximately) “accepted” the Western moral code. (This is the moral code shaped by the influences of Judaism and Christianity and held by most people in Europe and North America.) This would not imply the existence of a universal and absolute moral code, as it would not mean that this code would apply to others, such as future people, who did not support this type of ethical thinking. Thus, the relativist would argue that a moral code could be universally accepted without being universally valid, and therefore could not be absolute. Many normative theories that would typically be discussed in an introductory course to ethics are considered a kind of absolutism in the first sense. For example, utilitarianism presents a theory of morality that actions are correct, just in case they produce more general wealth than the available alternatives. It is an absolute representation of morality, for it implies that there is a correct answer to what is right in all circumstances. This applies to everyone, even those who did not know or accept the utilitarian principle. Similarly, Kant`s theory is also a kind of absolutism, as it asserts that moral good and evil are all ultimately determined by a basic principle of practical reason – the categorical imperative – and are therefore applicable to all rational agents.
Utilitarianism and Kantianism are two forms of monism, the idea that there is ultimately only one absolute and fundamental moral principle. However, not all forms of absolutism start from this hypothesis. W.D. Ross` theory, for example, supports a variety of absolute moral principles, none of which is more fundamental than another (see Intuitionism). It is still an absolutist representation of morality in our first sense, it is the meaning that opposes relativism because it claims universal applicability. W. D. Ross`s prima facie duties, for example, dictate that it is always prima facie wrong to break a promise. (See also Ethics, Normative Ethics) Rhyme dictionary: words that rhyme with absolutism What actions or types of actions are traditionally considered absolutely false? Historically, philosophers have been absolutists when it comes to many types of actions such as lying, aduralization, and sodomy. However, in a contemporary context, torture and the execution of innocent people are two of the most common acts considered absolute prohibitions. And these are also the most plausible cases.
In fact, the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1987) maintains an absolutism of this form. “No extraordinary circumstances, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked to justify torture” (Article 2). This resolution states that torture is inadmissible regardless of the expected consequences of torture, such as the prevention of the bombing of New York City by terrorists. It would be morally reprehensible to torture a terrorist to find out where a bomb is hidden, even if the consequences of not giving up would be quite catastrophic. Nglish: The translation of absolutism for Spanish speakers “absolutism” (or “moral absolutism”) also refers to a certain type of ethical theory, that is, a normative theory according to which certain actions (types of actions) are absolutely prohibited. Absolutism in this sense says, for example, that it is always wrong to kill, or always lie badly, or always wrong to torment the other. However, it is important to note that absolutism is not a theory of “which” actions are absolutely forbidden or required, but only a theory that certain actions are absolutely forbidden in this way. Absolutism only maintains the formal requirement that certain moral principles do not allow exceptions – that there are moral principles that it is always wrong to break. This implies that it is possible to be absolutist in relation to any type of action, although most absolutists defend their position through torture, the murder of innocent people and so on.
Although ethical deontological theories are not necessarily absolutist, they have been important deontologists. Kant`s infamous discussion of the investigating murderer suggests that he believed that the ethical limitation of lying was absolute. In his infamous essay “On a Supposed Right to Lie for Altruistic Motives,” Kant opposes the lawfulness of lying even to a man known to be attempting to kill in search of his victim.