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 Contradiction Argument that Shafer Landau raises in The Foundations of Ethics to demonstrate the overall merits of pluralism and to demonstrate the superiority of non-absolutist pluralism. Finally, I will solidify the fact that non-absolutism is the stronger of the two camps through the use of W.D. Ross's 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. This is because its central claims do not collapse under the weight of the arguments it is given to oppose, and because it provides superior responses to objections than the absolutist school of pluralism. First, it is essential to note the poles of the ethical pluralism issue. Shafer Landau describes ethical pluralism this way: “Ethical pluralism is a family of views according to which there is a plurality of fundamental moral rules. Pluralists therefore deny that ethics can be systematized under a single rule" (215). Ethical pluralism is in direct contrast to 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 ethic of prima facie duties (not absolutism) has much merit to it. It is pluralistic, in the sense that it rejects monism and rejects the idea that all morality revolves around one fundamental moral rule (250). He also rejects absolutism, which makes him capable of correcting, sometimes breaking what we believe are legitimate moral rules. He easily handles the topic of contradiction and moral conflict in the form of moral regret. On top of all this, Ross's theory addresses the topic of disaster prevention and other topics designed to undermine moral absolutism well (250). All in all, non-absolutism has better responses to objections, a stronger underlying philosophy, and has flexibility that absolutism simply does not have. Information provided by Shafer Landau and Ross supports this theory.