Moral absolutism is ametaethical view that some or even allactions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context or consequence.[1][2]
Moral absolutism is not the same asmoral universalism. Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed tomoral relativism),[3] but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is sometimes independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism).Louis Pojman gives the following definitions to distinguish the two positions of moral absolutism and objectivism:[4]
Ethical theories which place strong emphasis onrights andduty, such as thedeontological ethics ofImmanuel Kant, are often forms of moral absolutism, as are manyreligious moral codes.
One can adhere to moral absolutism in a strictly secular context, exemplified by the many variations of deontologicalmoral rationalism. However, many religions, especially ones which define divine commandments, also adhere to moral absolutist positions. Therefore, to followers of such religions, the moral system is absolute, perfect and unchanging. Some secular philosophies also take a morally absolutist position, asserting that the absolute laws of morality are inherent in the nature of people, the nature of life in general, or the Universe itself.[citation needed]
Thomas Aquinas never explicitly addresses theEuthyphro dilemma, but draws a distinction between what is good or evil in itself and what is good or evil because of God's commands,[5][full citation needed] with unchangeable moral standards forming the bulk ofnatural law.[6][full citation needed] Thus he contends that not even God can change theTen Commandments, adding, however, that Godcan change what individuals deserve in particular cases, in what might look like special dispensations to murder or steal.[7][full citation needed]
