While much has been hypothesized regarding relative and absolute ethics, it is of immense significance to note that they differ with regards to many issues. Above all, absolute ethics refer to cases whereby certain things are moral or immoral from an objective point of view. As such, they cannot change depending on culture. To be precise, there are certain things that are right or wrong on their own; hence, their goodness or badness is not determined by cultural beliefs (Alvdrez, 2013). Worth noting is the fact that there are things that are considered naturally ethical. This means they are “ethical by default.” Many at times, the absolute ethics are referred to as deontological ethics. On another note that are based on the point of viewed devised by deontological or absolutists theorists.
Therefore, absolute ethics is different from relative ethics based on the fact that relative ethics are ethical concerns that are primarily determined by the cultural beliefs. For this reason, they vary from one culture to the other. While absolute ethics are not influenced by cultural beliefs, relative ethics are dependent on cultural beliefs. To be precise, relative ethics is evident in cases whereby what one society beliefs to be good or wrong may be considered otherwise in another society (Alvdrez, 2013). In a nutshell, it means that something is not right on its own, but its goodness is determined by independent individual views, which vary. Deductively, relative ethics occurs in cases where different societies have different view on the ethicality of one thing.
With regards to law, absolute law occurs in cases whereby someone is held liable for certain offenses, which they might have committed unwillingly (Alvdrez, 2013). For example, someone might have stolen food because he was hungry, but he or she will have answer charges of theft no matter his situation. In such a case, the absolute ethical concern is that stealing is wrong regardless of the situation. Using the same example, relative ethics in the contecxt of law is evident whereby the court might consider the circumstances that might have forced someone to steal. In the case of the person who stole because he poor she was hungry, the court might dismiss the case on the notion that the person was forced to steal by hunger. This shows the difference between absolute and relative ethics.
Reference
Alvdrez, F. (2013). Towards the True Law. Boston: Palibrio.
