Final answer:
The belief in truth as an absolute value is situationally dependent in the context of a moral dilemma; truth itself, philosophically speaking, is considered objective and not relative. Resolving ethical conflicts often involves complex considerations, such as balancing conflicting duties or consulting ethical principles like Rawls's maximum-minimum principle.
Step-by-step explanation:
When considering whether Thomasma believes in telling the truth as an absolute value, the context implies a situationally dependent view, but without direct information on Thomasma's opinion, we cannot be certain. Philosophical discussions about truth often involve the consideration of moral dilemmas,
such as the conflict between the duty to avoid lying and the duty to prevent harm. In situations where telling the truth can cause harm, an absolutist would maintain that one should never lie, while a situational ethicist would argue that the moral action depends on the specific context.
Regarding whether truth is relative, the classic philosophical stance, as seen in Aristotle's theory, attributes a single truth value to statements: a statement is true if it accurately describes reality. Therefore, while opinions may vary, truth in this context is not relative to individuals but is objective and independent of personal beliefs.
Addressing moral conflicts, such as choosing between lying to protect a parent or telling the truth to uphold the law, requires careful consideration of the ethical implications of each choice. Philosopher Rawls might suggest consulting the maximum-minimum principle to determine which action best aligns with moral goods when resolving such a dilemma.
In conclusion, moral dilemmas and the concept of truth present complex challenges in ethical and philosophical inquiry, showing that both absolutes and relatives may not be sufficient in providing clear answers to some moral and truth-related issues.