Moral Absolutism | Ethics Defined

Moral objectivism is the belief in objective moral values. Most of us can agree that we occupy an objective universe that is independent from our beliefs about it (i.e. you can be wrong about something or anything). If this is true we can assume that individuals possess and maintain a persinal, subjective view of morality as it plays out in the universe. Moral objectivists want to tell you that there are moral laws made real somewhere out there in the universe, that morality is immutable, and that they know what those facts are, somehow. They couch it in scientific language, using words like fact, law, objectivism, but what they're really saying is, "There are simple answers to complicated moral questions, and I have those answers." There's no reason to listen to these people. We all see the world how we wish to see it and are aware that we have biases if not a good awareness of them, but objectivists do so without self awareness.

There are certains morals which are ABSOLUTE. There are others which are subjective.

Your ending statement seems false. You seem to commit a straw man fallacy and imply that Moral Absolutism says everyone's view on morals are the same, then say that moral principles vary from person to person. If you are not doing this, you are making an argument with no backing. The argument that morality is relative against Moral Absolutism's argument that morality is constant.

Ok just because there our differentanswers doesn't mean that there isn't a right answer period post a bed last question on Twitter will be an insane amount of different answers but that doesn't mean there isn't a right answer to the bedmass question. Just some food for thought.

I use to be a Moral Pluralist, but over time of seeing my national decline I became a Moral Absolutist, knowing my morals and the greatness it inspires over all others

WHERE'S MY ENGLISH 2B GANG? SHAWAWT! HAHAHAHAHA

Moral Absolutism is not the view that all views are the same, but that all ought to be the same. You commit a straw man at the end. This is especially concerning in a world that believes that we ought not put our values on others, while putting this value on everybody. Besides, there are really three different strains of moral relativism, all of which hold an absolute value. 1) We ought not care what others think about morals 2) We ought do what we think is right, without any grounds on what right and wrong are 3) We ought do what we will If we ought do what we will, then we must respect our will. An absolute. Doing what you think is right is just a sect of three. And we ought not care what others think because we think it's right is a sect of two. All values are absolute, and all draw from what seems to be what true morality is.

Moral Absolutism is a form of Deontology? No, it's the other way around. Deontology is a form of Moral Absolutism. Natural Law Theory, for example, is an absolutist morality, but it's not Deontology.

A moral absolute exists: the fact that one or more people disagree with it does not mean that it does not exist. Take for example Nazism in Germany during World War II. In that society, most people agreed that it was morally right to murder Jews. But that doesn't make killing or genocide morally right. Let's take another example: let's assume we see a doctor perform an abortion. The moment we see a live baby being dissected, we know that abortion is morally wrong. What happens is that the doctor gets used to doing something morally wrong, and loses sensitivity. Cultures suppress morally wrong actions for convenience, such as not having to take care of a child. But that doesn't make killing a child willfully morally wrong. Being kind to others is always morally right, as is having patience. These are absolute morals. These are also qualities of God: "But you, Lord, are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness." (Psalms 86:15) Murder, rape, and the torture of children are morally wrong, no matter the culture or the situation.