Final answer:
The claim that Pojman argues moral objectivism and moral absolutism are the same is false. Moral objectivism acknowledges the existence of objective moral truths that are not rigidly absolute, while moral absolutism prescribes unchangeable moral rules without exceptions. The correct option is b. false
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that Pojman argues that moral objectivism and moral absolutism are practically the same is false. These two concepts in moral philosophy have distinct characteristics.
Moral objectivism is the view that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of human opinion. It does not mean that all moral principles are inflexible and that exceptions to these principles do not exist.
Moral absolutism, on the other hand, argues that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and it does not allow for any exceptions to prescribed moral rules, often derived from religious teachings or presumed universal principles.
Philosophers like Sir William David Ross and Elizabeth Anscombe have sought alternatives that recognize the complexity of moral reasoning and the role of different contexts and goals (telos) in determining moral actions.
Moral absolutism is often associated with deontological perspectives like Kant's, where moral rules are seen as universal and unchanging, whereas moral objectivism allows for a more nuanced understanding that accommodates pluralistic and situational perspectives. The correct option is b. false