Essay Sample on Absolute Morality: Right vs Wrong

Introduction

Ethically speaking, absolute moral rules demand that regardless of the circumstances provided at a given time of an occurrence, an action is either wrong or right regardless of the necessary outcomes. The idea of absolute morality derives from the fact that once an act committed, it cannot be reversed or changed. Therefore, any action is either right or wrong, and no justification whatsoever can be used to support wrongdoing. Based on this understanding, it is evident that the existence of absolute moral rules or rulers is not only impractical but also challenging to decipher with certainty. In fact, due to the high propensity of human beings to error, their actions cannot meet the expectations of such strict rules. Reasnably, absolute moral ruler/rules do not exist. The discussion in this paper helps to put my argument into perspective.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

There are many moral theories which provide a clear understanding of the existence or otherwise of absolute ethical rules. The moral theory of deontology argues that a person should perform their duties no matter the outcome. The concept posits that a person should follow the moral laws without any exceptions whatsoever regardless of whether the overall result will either be good or bad. I beg to disagree. In my own opinion, this theory gives an easy pass to persons who perform inappropriate actions on other people because it is morally right. This is so because one should be able to outrightly weigh their deeds together with the result to the general population. For example, clearing trees and bushes to create space for human development due to the increasing population seems like the morally right thing to do. But the overall outcome of this act if uncontrolled will lead to acute deforestation that will definitely affect a more significant population and also contribute further to climate change. Therefore, to me, the deontological moral theory does not stand. Hence a person should rationally weigh their actions depending on the outcome and far-reaching effects in the long run before undertaking the activity, whether its morally right or wrong.

From a moralist view, the principle of universalizability argues that a person has their rights to undertake action as long as it gets them what they need in the long run. The real question should be that if every other person would conform to this principle, would there be any cohesion in the world today. I beg to disagree and state that the end doesn't justify the means. Putting your needs and actions first before considering the needs of other people makes one appear as self-important and selfish. Performing a wrong action aimed at merely getting a satisfactory personal outcome at the end is very inconsiderate and immoral. I think that if everyone would undertake the very same lousy action for self-satisfaction at the very end, then there would be no order at all, thus a backward society. A typical example, in this case, is politicians who embezzle public funds meant for social-economic development for his/her constituents to become rich quickly. If everyone were to act selfishly as these corrupt politicians, then there would be no amenities, no development records, and no utilities but a general suffering population and a few wealthy individuals. Therefore, I do not support or conform to this principle of universalizability as it a timebomb and a much higher risk of an immoral society full of a few wealthy individuals and thus defend my statement that absolute moral rulers/rules do not exist.

Consequentialist theorists, on the other hand, argue that a person should always look into and consider the future to determine the quality of his/her actions today. This according to me is an excellent way to measure a persons' rationality before choosing to undertake any given action. It supports the principle of humanity where a person is encouraged to treat other people not merely as a means but as an end. Meaning one should treat others with respect, dignity, consideration, and appreciation just as they would also expect others to address them. This, therefore, doesn't conform to autonomy which supports that others are more superior to others. Like humans are more superior to animals in this case as an example. I think that everyone, human, animal or even object is unique on its own. The ability of a person to welcome change, accept change and consequently live harmoniously and with great consideration of an individual fellow person is a wonder. This should be the guidelines that lead any person into rational thinking and continually thinking about the result of their behaviors before undertaking them with great emphasis for future generations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the various stances and arguments presented in this paper underscore the idea that absolute moral rulers/rules do not exist. An action can be relatively wrong or relatively right depending on the overall outcome. An act can never be judged as either right or wrong regardless of the consequences. Therefore, with a lot of respect, theories should remain as theories and should never be used to influence a population thought and action directly. This is so because some approaches are rigid but different situations call for varying levels of flexibility and rationality for a just and moral society. Everyone, therefore, needs to think, internalize and understand that actions have consequences. Right actions at first may lead to negative consequences, and wrong actions at first may lead to positive results in the end. Therefore, a need to find a rational balance of establishing the effects based on future events should be determined and set.