Absolutism vs. Scepticism — What's the Difference?

Absolutism asserts that certain truths or ethical principles are universal and unchanging, applicable to all circumstances without exception. This view is often associated with moral and legal standards that are seen as fundamentally binding. In contrast, scepticism challenges the notion of absolute certainty in knowledge, arguing that our perceptions and interpretations may be flawed or limited, thus all claims to knowledge should be critically examined and doubted.

In the realm of ethics, absolutism might dictate a specific moral action as always right or wrong, regardless of context or consequences. Scepticism, on the other hand, would encourage questioning the basis of these moral judgments, potentially leading to a more relativistic or contextual understanding of morality.

Philosophically, absolutism can provide a stable foundation for decision-making and governance, as it relies on fixed truths and principles. Scepticism, while it can lead to indecision by constantly questioning truths, also promotes intellectual humility and ongoing inquiry, which can adapt to new information and perspectives.

Absolutism tends to be dogmatic, potentially discouraging critical thinking by adhering strictly to established doctrines. Scepticism, conversely, fosters a culture of debate and reflection, where beliefs are always open to challenge and revision.

While absolutism can be seen in political systems that centralize authority and dictate uniform policies, scepticism often aligns with democratic values that encourage diversity of thought and participatory decision-making. This reflects scepticism’s foundational role in scientific and democratic processes, where questioning and testing ideas are crucial for progress.