In today's world, a dominant question in meta-ethics is whether morality is absolute or relative. The main intention of this work is to highlight the contradiction between the two moral frames (moral absolutism and moral relativism) in a critical context. Both moral absolutism and relativism play a vital role in the development of ethical theory. Moral relativism is a relatively new moral paradigm that challenges moral absolutism. The reason for the conflict between moral absolutism and relativism is based on whether there is a single criterion of morality or whether the moral criterion is relative. Moral absolutism holds that a single criterion of morality applies to everyone. While moral relativism rejects this view, it argues that no single moral criterion applies universally. Instead, moral standards differ from person to person and community to community. These two issues are not merely theoretical; they have practical implications for human rights, global justice, intercultural dialogue, and moral disagreements. This paper aims to explore how people determine what is right and wrong, good and bad, in light of these two doctrines. It also seeks to analyse the debate critically by examining its conceptual foundations, philosophical arguments, and the limitations of both doctrines. A Critical Overview of Moral Absolutism and Moral Relativism: A Meta-Ethical Approach NBP AJAHS/ 2(1), 38-49 Page 3 of 12 true regardless of personal beliefs or opinions. It claims that specific actions are inherently right or wrong, and human opinion doesn’t change that. The other critical theory of morality is Moral relativism, the idea that moral judgments are true or false only relative to a specific standpoint. This is simply a claim that absolute right or wrong really does not exist. Here, right and wrong are determined by one’s perspective or cultural context. This view holds that what is true for one person is not necessarily true for others. For instance, it could be true for Person – A that “slavery is wrong,” but true for Person – B that “slavery is right”. Moreover, Moral subjectivism asserts that ethical standards are subjective and derived from one’s opinions, feelings, beliefs, and perceptions. It advises that an individual's preferences and values determine which actions are right or wrong. However, this research is designed to explore the nature of moral absolutism and moral relativism, followed by a critical section in which I intend to highlight the popular conflicts between them. 2. Moral Absolutism: Moral absolutism is the principle that a single moral code applies universally to all human beings. Some truths or values in the relevant domain apply universally across all areas, times, cultural, and social frameworks. Absolutism holds that truth, or goodness, does not vary from culture to culture. If a judgment or principle always remains identical and true, and there cannot be any incompatibility or exception to it at any cost, it is called a universal or absolute moral principle. “There are three characteristics of absolute principles: unchangeability, universality, and objectivity. Firstly, absolutes are not relative to time, so they do not change under any circumstances. Secondly, this is not relative to class, A Critical Overview of Moral Absolutism and Moral Relativism: A Meta-Ethical Approach NBP AJAHS/ 2(1), 38-49 Page 7 of 12 Morality is a fundamental principle; it is sometimes influenced by people’s economic circumstances. For instance, the notions of moral good and bad are often associated only with the well-being of the rich, not with that of the poor. Therefore, what is considered morally good or bad varies depending on economic conditions; for example, what is good or beneficial for the rich may be bad for the poor. 4. The Conflict between Moral Absolutism and Moral Relativism: Moral absolutism holds that there is a fixed, universal moral code, whereas moral relativism reverses this, saying that morals are not fixed; they depend on the situation or culture. This is why it can be stated that neither of them is similar; there are inevitable disagreements between them. Relativism suggests that absolute things do not exist. Absolutism holds that there are some absolutes, at least one. Relativism is always relative to something else. Absolutism is ‘not relative,’ but necessary. In abs olutism, there are no conditions, so it is unconditioned. Absolutism asserts that people can discover values; relativism, on the other hand, mentions that people can create them. For instance, people are free to create or change baseball rules, but not free to change the fundamental principle that two plus two equals four. In that case, it can be said that relativism gives us freedom, and absolutism takes it away. Absolutism is the perception of everyone, and relativism is an individual's perception. Relati vism holds that morality depends on the individual and their feelings. Gilbert Harman asserts that: “According to moral absolutism, there is a single moral law that applies to everyone; in other words, there are moral demands that everyone has sufficient reasons to follow, and these demands are the source of all moral reasons. While Moral relativism denies that there are universal moral demands, it argues that different people are subject to different basic moral demands depending on the social customs, practices, conventions, values, and principles they accept. (Harman. G., 2000, P. 85)2.” Moral absolutists might say that lying is always wrong. Moral relativists would say lying can be right or wrong depending on why and where it’s done (e.g., saving someone’s life vs. hurting someone’s feelings). Baghramian further adds: “Absolutism also entails the universal validity of moral principles. Universalism is the claim that the scope of at least some moral claims or principles goes beyond the beliefs 2 Harman. G., 2000, P. 85