Moral Relativism, Determinism, And Utilitarianism

Philosophers like Aristotle, Hegel, Nietzsche were interested in the real nature of ethics. Even today, there is still a divergence of opinion concerning what is considered wrong what is considered good. Ethics, by definition, are “the study of good and evil, right and wrong, moral rules virtues, and the good life; their status, meaning, and justification” (G-3). Some people think that we naturally possess principles that help us categorized our actions. However, this belief does not do the unanimity since there are some oppositions. Relativism, Determinism, and Utilitarianism are three of the big theories that challenge this traditional idea.

Moral relativism is a philosophical doctrine that claims that the veracity or falsehood of a moral

It means that there is a conditioning of one thing by another. Every fact, every phenomenon, every event is, basically, only a ring in a chain of facts, each of which is predetermined by the preceding facts (causes or motives) and inevitably generates subsequent actions (consequences). There is no fact, without decisive reason. Everything in the world has its determinate reason. Everything happens infallibly when certain conditions are given and do not happen otherwise. There is, therefore, a close, inviolable connection between all the phenomena of nature, of life, of all that is in the world. Such is the general formula of the idea of determinism. This belief made many adepts like Kant and Hobbes who thinks that “for every event, including human actions, there is a set of sufficient conditions guaranteeing its occurrence[..] this poses, of course: the problem of freedom of will” (363). Whatever the diversity of philosophical criticisms of free will, the problem to be solved lies in the domain of ethics. Morality is unthinkable in a world of determinism because if Man doesn’t possess free will, rewards for his prowess and punishment for his wrongdoing would be vain. The negation of free will disempowered man. If free will is an illusion, how can anyone be held responsible? How can one judge from an ethical point of view an

Utilitarianism was founded by English Jeremy Bentham. Very popular and today probably dominant, this moral philosophy aims to make accessible happiness. It starts from the simple observation that the brutal and unreflective care of pleasure often leads to immoral actions but also ends up in more suffering than in joys. It is, therefore necessary, in order to serve his interest and his pleasure, to reflect and calculate his interest. It is the famous "arithmetic of pleasures" that intervenes then. In order to make its moral balance, one must literally "calculate" pleasures on all their dimensions: “Intensity, Duration, certainty or uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, purity, extent” (512). This arithmetic implies “that happiness can be quantified” (513). Now, in reality, pleasure and happiness are not homogeneous and comparable data. They are not on the same level. I can be very unhappy and yet enjoy having a drink with friends. Or on the contrary, I can feel very happy without experiencing particular pleasures. Ultimately, utilitarian morality makes fun of morality, it is ultimately a well-thought-out egoism that is passed for altruism. To advocate utilitarianism is to