The OCR philosophy mark scheme says that moral absolutism is where certain actions are right or wrong intrinsically, that consequences and circumstances have no bearing, and
that moral commands are considered objectively and universally true.
It says that the deontological approaches to ethical decision making look at whether the action itself is right or wrong.
So what is the actual difference between the two terms if both state that their ethical standpoints and judgements concern whether an action itself is right or wrong?
Thanks to all that answer
Absolutivism is what Deontological ethics is because it rules out any consequentialist theories like utilitarianism etc.
this means that a moral act is always and will ALWAYS remain absolutely wrong or right in a circumstance .
For example, in kanthan ethics we have the example of his 'axe murderer' it is our duty to tell the truth always so he goes and kills the Jews hiding inside the attic.
So it's always wrong to lie
Do you want the arguments for this?
Posted from TSR Mobile