Moral absolutism is the ethical position that some moral rules are universally true, apply to everyone, and do not change based on context, culture, intentions, or consequences.
In short: right is right, wrong is wrong—always.
Core features
- Universal – Moral truths apply to all people, everywhere.
- Objective – Morality exists independently of personal beliefs or feelings.
- Context-independent – Circumstances don’t alter the moral rule.
Classic examples
- “Murder is always wrong.”
- “Lying is always wrong.”
- “Torture is always immoral, no exceptions.”
Even if a lie would save a life, a strict moral absolutist would say lying is still wrong.
Common sources
- Divine command theory (morality comes from God)
- Natural law traditions
- Kantian ethics (duty-based morality; rules must be universalizable)
Strengths
- Provides moral clarity and consistency
- Guards against rationalizing harm (“the ends justify the means”)
- Supports strong human rights frameworks
Critiques
- Can be rigid and unrealistic
- Struggles with moral dilemmas (e.g., lying to hide someone from violence)
- May ignore context, compassion, or proportionality
Contrast with related views
- Moral relativism: morality depends on culture or situation.
- Moral particularism: no fixed rules; context always matters.
- Moral realism (non-absolutist): objective morals exist, but exceptions may apply.
Psychological angle (since this may be relevant to you)
Moral absolutism often correlates with:
- High need for certainty
- Threat sensitivity (clear rules reduce ambiguity)
- Strong group identity or sacred values
It can be stabilizing—or, when extreme, contribute to black-and-white thinking.
Shervan K Shahhian
LIBERTY PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION 