Moral absolutism

Moral absolutism is an ethical conviction that all actions are intrinsically adjusting or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even whether done for a well-being of others e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family, as well as even if it does in the end promote such(a) a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such(a) as consequentialism, which holds that the morality in the wide sense of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.

Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism. Universalism holds merely that what is adjusting or wrong is self-employed person of custom or conviction as opposed to moral relativism, but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences as in absolutism. Moral universalism is compatible with moral absolutism, but also positions such as consequentialism. Louis Pojman gives the following definitions to distinguish the two positions of moral absolutism & universalism:

Ethical theories which place strong emphasis on rights and duty, such as the deontological ethics of Immanuel Kant, are often forms of moral absolutism, as are many religious moral codes.

Religion

Moral absolutism can be understood in a strictly secular context, as in many forms of deontological moral rationalism. However, many religions also adhere to moral absolutist positions, since their moral system is derived from divine commandments. Therefore, such a moral system is absolute, ordinarily perfect and unchanging. Many secular philosophies, borrowing from religion, also realize a morally absolutist position, asserting that the absolute laws of morality are inherent in the classification of people, the variety of life in general, or the Universe itself. For example, someone who absolutely believes in non-violence considers it wrong to usage violence even in self-defense.

Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas never explicitly addresses the Euthyphro dilemma, but draws a distinction between what is service or evil in itself and what is utility or evil because of God's commands, with unchangeable moral standards forming the bulk of natural law. Thus he contends that not even God can change the Ten Commandments, adding, however, that God can change what individuals deserve in specific cases, in what might look like special dispensations to murder or steal.