(highered.mcgraw-hill.com).
Moral Relativism Vs. Moral Absolutism.
Moral Relativism.
Moral relativists contend that what is ethically right or wrong may shift in a key manner from individual to individual or from society to society. As such, as Robert Arrington (1983) contends, we can't essentially say that an ethical judgment is valid for all reasons, persons, and societies we can affirm just that it is valid for a specific individual or social aggregation. Relativism does not imply that we can't reprimand individuals of different societies on ethical grounds, however it does imply that when we say that an individual in an alternate society completed wrong or acted corruptly, we must judge that individual by the models of that society and not by our own (Cook 1999: 35). In different words, there are goal ethical norms as long as judgments about good and bad are made generally.
Moral Absolutism.
This perspective contends that there exists an everlasting and perpetual ethical law, the same for all individuals, constantly and places (Holmes 1998: 165). The absolutist accepts that certain ethical standards apply to all individuals all over, and that individuals can distinguish or run across these standards and be guided by them in choosing the way of their own behavior and in judging the behavior of others. Likewise, the moral absolutist, being now cognizant of these standards, accepts himself or herself qualified to condemn anybody (Cook 1999: 7). Absolutism is recognized good paying little respect to thought and feeling. This position is the inverse of relativism, in that there can be no attention of different points of view, since it is contended that there is one and only "correct" viewpoint (sagepub.com).
Ethical Issues in Business Affecting Business Operations.
Because of expanding globalization, universal business ethics has turned into an essential issue. The amount of multinational organizations, which work outside of their home nation, is expanding quickly.