Final answer:
The claim that Pojman equates moral objectivism with moral absolutism is false. While both propose the existence of universal moral standards, moral absolutism adheres to unerring and universally applicable moral rules, whereas objectivism allows for some moral truths to exist independently of beliefs without always being absolute.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that Pojman argues that moral objectivism and moral absolutism are practically the same is false. Moral objectivism is a philosophical position advocating for objective truths in morality, suggesting that certain moral facts exist independently of human opinion. On the other hand, moral absolutism is a stricter viewpoint that suggests moral principles are unchangeable and applicable in all situations, without exceptions.
Moral relativism challenges both of these perspectives by contending that morality is relative to cultures and individuals. Therefore, while moral objectivism and moral absolutism may seem similar because they both assume moral standards that transcend individual beliefs, absolutism is more rigid in applying these standards universally and without exceptions. The discussion of these moral theories explores the nuances of establishing ethical systems without reducing them to a single principle, which often fails to account for the complexity of moral life.