In this article, I will use an objection raised against the theory of ethical pluralism to demonstrate how non-absolutist pluralism is a stronger theory than absolutist pluralism. I will begin by summarizing what ethical pluralism and ethical monism are according to Shafer Landau's standards. My article already assumes that pluralism is the better theory, but understanding what these two theories consist of is essential to showing how much stronger non-absolutist pluralism is as a school of thought. Next, I will explain the specific argument against absolutist ethical pluralism that I will address. I intend to use the weaknesses of the Argument from Contradiction that Shafer Landau raises in The Foundations of Ethics to demonstrate the overall merits of pluralism and prove the superiority of non-absolutist pluralism. Finally, I will confirm that non-absolutism is the stronger of the two camps through the use of WD Ross' prima facie duties. Overall, both schools of ethical pluralism are superior to the theory of monism, but it is the non-absolutist camp that has reason to be preferred. Indeed, its central claims do not collapse under the weight of the arguments put forward to oppose it and the fact that it provides answers to objections superior to those of the absolutist school of pluralism. pluralism. Shafer Landau describes ethical pluralism as follows: “Ethical pluralism is a family of views according to which there is a plurality of fundamental moral rules. Thus, pluralists deny that we can systematize ethics under a single rule” (215). Ethical pluralism directly contrasts with another theory known as ethical monism. Ethical monism is the belief that there...... middle of paper ...... are absolute (243). In conclusion, it is clear that the ethics of prima facie duties (non-absolutism) has much merit in this. He is pluralist, meaning he rejects monism and the idea that all morality revolves around a fundamental moral rule (250). It also rejects absolutism, which allows it to rectify breaches sometimes of what we believe to be legitimate moral rules. He easily handles the contradiction argument and moral conflict in the form of moral regret. On top of all this, Ross's theory effectively addresses the disaster prevention argument and other arguments designed to undermine moral absolutism (250). Overall, non-absolutism has better responses to objections, a stronger basic philosophy, and flexibility that absolutism simply does not have. Information provided by Shafer Landau and Ross supports this theory.