MORAL RELATIVISM AND MORAL OBJECTIVISM

The next challenge to ethics comes from the claim that moral judgments are relative to the individual or particular societies and are not universally applicable. Moral relativists are those who deny the existence of universal moral principles. The opposite position to moral relativism is called moral objectivism. It takes the position, that there are objective moral truths that some actions are right for all people at all times and that others are wrong for all people at all times. Theories of moral objectivism can be approximately divided into two categories: consequentialist (also known as teleological) and deontological. Consequentialist theories state that what makes an action right or wrong are the consequences which flow from it. If the consequences of an action are good, then it is good; otherwise it is bad. Deontological theories define the difference between good and bad actions on the basis of the quality of the action itself without considering its consequences. Thus truth telling is good and lying is bad regardless of the consequences that may follow. The problem with accepting relativism is that there will be then no fixed standard or criterion with reference to which actions can be evaluated as good or bad.