The primary difference between moral absolutism and moral relativism is the belief that moral standards are absolute and apply universally, or that they are subjective to the individual or cultural standards. Moral absolutism allows for a fundamental belief moral principles are objectively true and can be determined through reason, logic, and reflection. Moral absolutism establishes a foundation for basing moral judgments and clear principles that do not change over time and maintain that moral principles are always right or wrong, regardless of the circumstances. These principles apply all the time and to all people regardless of cultural or individual beliefs promoting stability and predictability as moral judgment is not swayed by subjective or cultural factors. (Gomez, n.d.)
Moral relativism is the idea that moral principles are relative to the culture or society in which they are held, and there are no objective moral truths that are universally applicable. Because there is no way to have a single set of moral principles that can be applied to all people or situations. Moral relativism argues that judgments must be flexible and adaptable as moral standards
…show more content…
By presenting the idea that everyone's moral beliefs and values are equally valid, there is no way to resolve moral disagreements or to determine which moral beliefs and values are more reasonable or justifiable. My argument against moral relativism is that it allows for harmful or unjust practices to be considered acceptable if it is culturally justified. One horrific example is moral relativism can have implications for how individuals and societies perceive and respond to practices such as honor killings. Moral relativism allows for honor killings to be seen as acceptable or justified in certain cultural contexts as a legitimate response to violations of cultural norms and