This week's ethics paper: Ethical Absolutism ought to be considered a standard for ethics.

Ethical Absolutism ought to be considered a standard for ethics. It is good-natured and seeks to show or portray that moral, goodness and values are absolute and non-changeable.

A commonly debated topic among people is that of self-defense (and possibly murder) in the event of a home burglary. Some people say that in the event of the willful murder, an Ethical Absolutist would say that willful murder is wrong.

However, the morality of the action never changes. Self-defense (even of/from perceived threats) of the person and/or family is absolute (because it happens as a consequence.) If death is the action/consequence then under Ethical Absolutism willful murder must be allowed (and good) in all circumstances of home invasion.

Another commonly discussed topic is that of war. Some would say that to an Ethical Absolutist war must never be allowed.

However, war is always good. War in of itself is usually fought for resources, differing ideas and nationalism. If everyone was free to war (as they are) they are then allowed to judge and decide on moral issues, issues of resources and differing ideas. War in all various contexts is to bring about change. War is absolutely good. Without the option of war or if war was morally wrong we would not be able to judge another country nor have a sense of nationalism.

As Paul McCartney says (McCartney), “As a nation defined by a creed and sense of mission, Americans equate their interests with those of humanity. This belief informs their global posture.”

With that sense of interest in humanity in mind, one must consider Ethical Absolutism to be thought of as a standard for ethics. It is quick, allows topics to be discussed and understood in a very fast amount of time and presents that these values surmised are absolute and unchangeable.