In philosophy, there are many different views regarding what is thought to constitute ethical behavior. Among them are the cultural relativist, utilitarian, and Kantian. Given a situation where someone must choose to either kill one person out of thirty so that the others could live or let all thirty people die in order to maintain their moral duty, the distinctive philosophical views would lead to varying responses. They contribute opposing ideas on what the right decision is. Generally, these three ethical theories have the power to influence what happens next. As a cultural relativist, one would believe that morality is culturally bound. This is a subjective idea that believes “different societies have different moral codes” (Rachels, …show more content…
This would be justified by the outcome of the decision because twenty-nine people dead are greater than one dead and, therefore, killing one is the right decision to make. It allows the greatest amount of people to survive as a result of shooting just one. It also permits the remaining twenty-nine villagers to happily reunite with their families, which produces the greatest amount of happiness. With one person dead and twenty-nine people alive, more villagers and their families would be content for a long time. This represents duration. Intensity is explained by how relieved and happy the survivors would be if they were unexpectedly let free. Lastly, probability is considered when debating between letting zero of thirty villagers survive or letting twenty-nine of thirty villagers survive. The latter constitutes a better end result, so the utilitarian would make the decision to kill …show more content…
This is because the Kantian theory proposes that one should stick to their moral beliefs and act accordingly. Although all thirty people will be shot, the hands of a Kantian are not responsible for conducting the shooting. To the Kantian, this represents how they are abiding by their moral duty and not personally inflicting physical harm on innocent people. A Kantian considers outcomes or consequences insignificant. This means that the result of their decision to refuse to shoot, which produces thirty dead villagers and even worse consequences, does not affect their choice because they only believe in sticking to their moral duty. The problem here may be the veil of ignorance that unfolds after the decision because it is unknown what the worse consequences will be for refusing an honor, but a Kantian does not take that into
By looking further into this dilemma using various ethical standpoints allows for a broad understanding of principles and complexity in a specific situation with these paradigms. The focuses are three prominent ethical paradigms such as: teleological utilitarianism, deontological duty theories and virtue based ethics. Each of these three paradigms will be applied to the aforementioned dilemma, each will be evaluated and the best option will be revealed.
The basis of this paper is centered around two somewhat conflicting moral theories that aim to outline two ways of ethical thinking. The theory behind both rule consequentialism and Kantian ethics will be compared and evaluated. These theories can then be applied to a relatively complex moral case known as the “Jim and the Indians” example.
In its entirety, moral relativism is comprised of the belief that, as members of various and countless cultures, we cannot judge each other’s morality. If this theory stands true, then “we have no basis for judging other cultures or values,” according to Professor McCombs’ Ethics 2. Our moral theories cannot extend throughout cultures, as we do not all share similar values. For instance, the Catholic tradition believes in the sacrament of Reconciliation. This sacrament holds that confessing one’s sins to a priest and
John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian belief that the moral thing to do is that which creates the greatest amount of happiness to greatest number of people, as well as, Immanuel Kant’s belief that murder is always morally wrong. In Rescue II, where the one individual is trapped on the path leading to the party of the five that need to be rescued; John Stuart Mill would suggest running over the one individual to save the party of five. His belief that saving the party of five would create the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number people or vice versa; that saving the party of five would create the least amount of suffering to the least amount of people is absurd. While John Stuart Mill has a great point with his views; this is still considered murder and or killing. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of one human being by another; and according to Immanuel Kant, the majority of the population, and the laws it is morally wrong. I concur that Immanuel Kant’s belief that murder is morally wrong. Kant says “I cannot, therefore, dispose in any way of a man in my own person so as to mutilate him, to damage or kill him” (Kant). This statement does in fact coincide with one of universal law. In no way, shape, or form would it be acceptable to murder one individual to save the lives of the party of five. Making the choice to prioritize the value of one individual’s life over
Cultural Relativism and the Divine Command Theory both had a tough time explaining why culture and God had the rights to state what is considered moral behavior. Especially when you lay your trust on God to guide you on what is moral or not, you face dangerous risks because there is a possibility that God is just a make-believe person up in the sky. Hence, humans who follow God’s words can misinterpret his meanings and cause immoral behavior in society. On the other hand, Ethical Relativism appeals to an authority that is present on this in this world, society and cultures. Nevertheless, society and cultures should not be relied on to indicate moral and immoral behavior because it is questionable to believe that our actions become moral just for the reason that our culture or society accepts them as normal. Despite the differences between The Divine Command Theory and Cultural Relativism, they both are theories that just fall short of their
Mill's Utilitarianism When faced with a moral dilemma, utilitarianism identifies the appropriate considerations, but offers no realistic way to gather the necessary information to make the required calculations. This lack of information is a problem both in evaluating the welfare issues and in evaluating the consequentialist issues which utilitarianism requires be weighed when making moral decisions. Utilitarianism attempts to solve both of these difficulties by appealing to experience; however, no method of reconciling an individual decision with the rules of experience is suggested, and no relative weights are assigned to the various considerations. In deciding whether or not to torture a terrorist who has planted a bomb in New York City, a utilitarian must evaluate both the overall welfare of the people involved or effected by the action taken, and the consequences of the action taken. To calculate the welfare of the people involved in or effected by an action, utilitarianism requires that all individuals be considered equally.
Rachels, James. "2.1 How Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes." The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. N.p.. Web. 1 Nov 2012. .
Imagine being faced with an important decision that affects a group of people. In order to make this decision you would have to decide which choice is wrong and which choice is right. There are two notable theories that believe a single moral principle provides the best way to achieve the best outcome to a moral judgement. These theories are utilitarianism and Kantian ethics.
The Utilitarian Approach: the ethical decision should provides the greatest good for the greatest number;
Rachels, J. (1986). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. The elements of moral philosophy (pp. 20-36). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
In explaining Cultural Relativism, it is useful to compare and contrast it with Ethical Relativism. Cultural Relativism is a theory about morality focused on the concept that matters of custom and ethics are not universal in nature but rather are culture specific. Each culture evolves its own unique moral code, separate and apart from any other. Ethical Relativism is also a theory of morality with a view of ethics similarly engaged in understanding how morality comes to be culturally defined. However, the formulation is quite different in that from a wide range of human habits, individual opinions drive the culture toward distinguishing normal “good” habits from abnormal “bad” habits. The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is bounded by culture or society.
There are different countries and cultures in the world, and as being claimed by cultural relativists, there is no such thing as “objective truth in morality” (Rachels, 2012). Cultural relativists are the people who believe in the Cultural Ethical Relativism, which declares that different cultures value different thing so common ethical truth does not exist. However, philosopher James Rachels argues against this theory due to its lack of invalidity and soundness. He introduced his Geographical Differences Argument to point out several mistakes in the CER theory. Cultural Ethical Relativism is not totally wrong because it guarantees people not to judge others’ cultures; but, Rachels’ viewpoints make a stronger argument that this theory should not be taken so far even though he does not reject it eventually.
Decision-making that affects the lives of the public or occurs in a high-risk, delicate situation cannot afford to be aimless. Thus, it is logical that philosophies have been developed to direct an individual’s behavior and are applicable in various fields such as the criminal justice system and the public sector. The utilitarian ethic is a school of thought that can conceivably impact the actions employed in public administration. The principle behind the utilitarian ethic holds that maximizing the happiness for the greatest number should function as the foundation when formulating judgments (Starling, 2011, p. 187). Therefore, the utilitarian ethic can facilitate the interests of those individuals that identify as being a part of the greatest number, but considerably disadvantage the “minority”. For example, suppose that the government is faced with a crisis and their designated response can result in either the mass loss of human life or the deaths of a few. Consequently, officials may determine that ensuring the
Moreover, cultures are simply a grouping of those individuals and their system of beliefs. It is evident that each culture is unique in their moral judgments. Philip Hugly and Charles Sayward provided the example of a native Indian and a native Nebraskan having a moral dispute about the killing of cattle for human consumption. In their essay, it was written “Since the judgments of the Indian and the Nebraskan both are in accord with their respective moralities, and each of those judgments is correct in the most fundamental sense of correctness applicable to moral judgments, they are both true,” and this exemplifies the moral relativist’s perspective. The Nebraskan was raised to believe that the killing of cattle is not immoral, due to their culture believing it to be moral. The native of India’s culture believed the act to be immoral, therefore the native was taught to believe the same. The fact that each of their cultures did not agree on the morality of killing cattle supports the concept of moral relativism, since each culture believed they were morally correct - but neither could prove they were. We can conclude from this example of moral diversity between cultures, amongst many others - that morals must be relative to cultures. If they were not, killing cattle would not be “wrong” in some cultures, but “right “ in others - and neither would things such as
Ending Life 3 Part 3: Explanation of the Ethical Theory For the theory, I will speak on utilitarianism. Utilitarianism as defined by Jon Stuart Mill is a theory based on the principle that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Mill Jon 2008)”. John Stuart, a nineteenth-century philosopher, argued that individuals, ultimately, are the best guardians of their interests. Utilitarianism suggests that the basis of morality is in what encourages happiness or pleasure without pain.