Study of Absolute Objectivism on an Example Ted Bundy

Absolute objectivism states that there are kinds of actions that are wrong no matter what the circumstances are. For example, absolute objectivism says that it would be wrong to steal bread for your starving family, because stealing is wrong. Absolute objectivism does not take into account that your family is starving, it only takes into account that stealing is wrong. I think this is a very ignorant position because moral decisions need to be looked at by a case-by-case basis. This position can also get foggy because the line is not always clear. What if a murder says to kill yourself or he kills your family? Absolute objectivism says suicide is wrong, but isn't causing your family to be killed wrong as well?

Absolute subjectivism relates closely to following what one's God tells them to do. It is somewhat close to absolute objectivism, because most people know what is right or wrong based on what they think their God would say is right or wrong. However, in absolute subjectivism, people may do things that may seem wrong because their God told them to do it, or that is was the right thing to do in the situation. I am not a religious person so I cannot personally relate to this position. This position can be tricky because it can allow people to actually think they are doing the right thing when they are doing awful things. For example, Hitler believes he was told by his God to commit genocide on the Jewish people. Hitler thought he was doing the right thing while he was actually committing one of the worst acts in human history.

Objective contextualism or objective relativism mostly leaves the judgement of whether or not a moral action was right or wrong, and takes the context of a decision into consideration. An objective contextualist may find murder wrong most of the time, but may find murder in self- defense an okay thing to do. This relates to universalism, the belief that most things are either right or wrong, but there can be exceptions to the rules. An objective contextualist may think it is wrong to commit suicide, but they may have less of a problem with it if the person committing suicide were in a truly hopeless situation, or had to do it for the greater good, like if they were a spy being tortured for information.

Subjective relativism states that whatever is right or wrong for an individual or culture is right or wrong for that individual and/or culture and not necessarily for anyone else. This position says that nothing is really right or wrong because it is up to the individual to decide what they think is right or wrong. For example, Ted Bundy did not find it wrong for him to murder all those women, so he believes that we do not really have any right to tell him what he did was wrong, because he decides what is right or wrong for him. Hypothetically, there may be a culture where it is customary for a father to rape his daughter when she reaches a certain age. In our culture, we would look at this custom as barbaric and morally wrong, but it may be perfectly accepted and thought of as normal in that culture. This position does not really work in modern culture, because if everyone did what they thought was right for them and did not have a cultural sense of what is right or wrong, we would have a very anarchical society.

I found that my moral position is objective relativism. When reading about the positions, I decided I was not an absolute objectivist because it is very inflexible and defines moral decisions as black and white without any shades of grey. Absolute subjectivism is not a terribly bad position, but I am not a religious person so it does not really apply to me. The main thing that worries me about that position is that crazy people may say that God told them to kill a large amount of people which would cause them to feel no remorse for their actions. Subjective relativism just does not work. If everyone lived by this principal, we would be living in a anarchical, Darwinist "survival-of-the-fittest" society wherein people would use force to do whatever they felt was the right thing for them to do. I very much like subjective relativism because it feels like the most sensible position. Basically, most things are right or wrong on the surface, but they can change based on the circumstances. Most of the time, it would be wrong of me to shoot and kill someone, but if they broke into my home or were threatening to murder myself or those I care about, it would not be morally wrong for me to kill them.

Religion does not really influence my moral thinking. Personally, I am a deist, so I do not believe my actions will be judged at the end of my life, but I do not feel that this gives me any right to be a bad person. Honestly, if people only do the right thing because they think they will be rewarded for it in the end, I do not think they are really that good of people in the first place. We should be kind to one another regardless of what we believe. I do not believe morals come from a God, because I do not necessarily believe in one, so I do not think my moral thoughts can come from something I do not believe in. I think our morals are primarily a product of our culture, because different cultures hold different ideas of right and wrong.

My moral position greatly relates to context, especially because I regard myself as an objective contextualist. Context basically defines my position. Yes, I may think murder is wrong most of the time, but until I know the circumstances of that murder, I will not decide if I think it is right or wrong. Context would only not apply in very few situations. If someone was raped or a child was beaten, I would most likely call those wrong without any other information, actions like those can very seldom, if ever, be justified.

Cite this page