For this reason, if a person conducts an act that reflects the right motive and good consequences it is normally perceived as flourishing moments and success. However, this does not mean that the consequences will not be there. In this case the paper seeks to analyze relativism and absolutism in the films Crimes and Misdemeanors and A Clockwork Orange.
There has been a conflict between objective theory and relativist theory in ethics. However, there is a clear distinguishing explanation which describes the absolutist theory as the degree of right and wrong from an objective point of view which should not change according to culture. Relativism is defined according to the Mariam Webster dictionary as a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing. The same dictionary also defines relativism as a view of ethical truth which may vary to personal conviction, cultural characteristic and differing religious beliefs (Gardiner).
Deontological reasoning states that certain things are wrong and right in themselves if they possess the intrinsic value. On the other hand relativist theory states that there is no universal valid moral principle. This is because we come from different cultures and that all the principles will therefore vary depending in the culture or age. This is a teological argument which means that there is no such good in itself. However, if an action deem good to you and bad to me, then there is no need for both of us finding out the truth.
From the film Crimes and Misdemeanors the author says, “It’s a fundamental difference in the way we view the world. You see it as harsh and empty of values and pitiless. And I couldn’t go on living if I didn’t feel it with all my heart a moral structure, with real meaning, and forgiveness, and a higher power, otherwise there’s no basis to live”