Right or Wrong: Being a Moral Relativist or a Moral Absolutist

Prompt: Right or Wrong?

While reading the assignment, I wasn’t quite sure I understood what was being asked of me in terms of specification. However, I am going to answer to the best of my knowledge and ability. In the process of reading the prompt I asked myself, are you a moral relativist or a moral absolutist? After giving this question much thought I concluded that I am a moral absolutist, because they believe “that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act.”

I believe that I am a moral absolutist because I feel that there are certain things that are right and certain things that are just wrong. There are many things that can determine if something is indeed right or wrong such as laws, your specific morals, religion, etc. Personally, I know that there are a lot of things that I see and hear daily that I might think are wrong but to the person saying them, they think that it’s right due to their moral beliefs and values.

I know that I have many morals and values that I believe in, and no one can change my way of thinking because I have reasons to why I think they are right or wrong. For example, wearing a helmet while riding any type of bike, some people might feel that they don’t need to wear a helmet because it looks silly; or they believe that they can’t get into an accident, they are invincible. However, in actuality it’s not a device meant to be stylish or make you look stupid, it’s meant to protect your head in case of an accident. I know that when I was younger my dad would not let me ride my bicycle without wearing a helmet and I hated it but I wore it because I knew it was protecting me. How do you feel about my outlook on this particular situation?

On the other hand, when it comes to the idea of being a moral relativist I don’t believe that that specific type of thinking is accurate. A moral relativist is someone that “is sometimes identified (usually by its critics) as the thesis that all points of view are equally valid. In ethics, this amounts to saying that all moralities are equally good; in epistemology it implies that all beliefs, or belief systems, are equally true.” To me this idea makes no sense at all. This is saying that everything that every person thinks or says is correct, so even if they are scientifically wrong they are morally correct, and their idea or belief is valid. I strongly disagree with this.