Wikipedia defines moral absolutism as the view that "there is at least one principle that ought never to be violated". Does this mean that even someone who holds morally objectivist utilitarianism would be considered a moral absolutist, as they believe it's a fact not maximizing the amount of good one can do is one principle which should never be violated?
1
-
2No. The "principle" in moral absolutism must judge the morality of action on its features at the time of acting (even Wikipedia opens with "moral absolutism is an ethical view that some (potentially all) actions are intrinsically right or wrong"). Since utilitarianism, and consequentialism generally, make morality of action dependent on its consequences they are automatically disqualified.– ConifoldFeb 24 at 15:44
Add a comment
|