The meaning of utilitarianism and moral relativism are very similar although they are two different theories. Most people often confuse the two because “the goal is to maximize happiness of people (Guy)”. Utilitarianism is to do good for the most people. This simply means that someone is doing a good act that will affect more than one person, rather a large amount of people. For example, if I were to donate $1,000 to a charity that helps build homes for the homeless, instead of giving a friend a $1,000 so she would not lose her home, the charity donation is a utilitarianism act; because it helped more people. The utilitarianism theory is determined by the end result. If we did not know how many people the money helped, then we would be unable …show more content…
to determine if it is a utilitarianism act. Moral relativism is more so based on the situation as a whole rather than the end result.
For example, say if a building was on fire and a fire man ran back in the building for his son’s dog and refused to save the other children in the building, and there was an ex-convict who ran back in the same burning building to save his son’s dog but not the other children in the building; then the ex-convict is the one who is more morally relative. The reason for this is because the firefighter is trained to rescue people in those kinds of emergency situations. It is insane and cruel for him not to try and rescue the children left in the building. As for the ex-convict no one expects him to care to go back in the building and rescue anyone, so the fact that he was able to save a life even if it was a dog, shows good character for him doing a good deed. See in this situation both the firefighter and ex- convict ignored the children in the burning building, but the fact that it is the firefighter’s duty to save others and he did not he was morally wrong. So, moral relativism is not so much the result but more so the expectations/ realism of the actual situation. As you can see both examples of utilitarianism and moral relativism fits the outcome of a good act that is meant to please someone; while both examples fit a different theory because the way the way the situation was
judged. The theory I choose is moral relativism, because I think people are always so quick to judge someone by what they done (the end result), instead of what lead them to do what they did. Sometimes when you look at a situation as a whole, a person may have done no wrong, or done good things for the wrong reason. For example, a person may donate money to charity to have a tax write off. If you only look at the end result that a person donated money then you would say they are a good person. But if you knew the person donated money for a tax write off then you would think negative things about the person. Looking at the situation as a whole gives better insight on a person’s motive. Knowing the totality of a situation can give more of a just outlook on something rather than just judging the outcome.
"Who's to judge who's right or wrong?" In the case against moral relativism Pojman provides an analysis of Relativism. His analysis includes an interpretation of Relativism that states the following ideas: Actions vary from society to society, individuals behavior depends on the society they belong to, and there are no standards of living that apply to all human kind. An example that demonstrates these ideas is people around the world eat beef (cows) and in India, cows are not to be eaten. From Pojman second analysis an example can be how the Japanese take of their shoes all the time before entering the house. In Mexico it is rare that people take off their shoes. They might find it wired or not normal. In his third analysis he gives that sense moral relativism and cultural relativism are tied together, that their can be no
Utilitarianism is an example of Consequentialist Ethics, where the morality of an action is determined by its accomplishing its desired results. In both scenarios the desired result was to save the lives of thousands of people in the community. Therefore, a Utilitarian would say that the actions taken in both of the scenarios are moral. Since an (Act) Utilitarian believes that actions should be judged according to the results it achieves. Happiness should not be simply one's own, but that of the greatest number. In both scenarios, the end result saved the lives of 5,000 members of the community. The end result is the only concern and to what extreme is taken to reach this result is of no matter. In these instances the things that are lost are an Inmates religious beliefs or a mothers fetus, on the other hand Thousands of citizens were saved from dying from this disease.
“Utilitarianism is the creed which accepts as the foundations of morals utility of the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mil, 90). Utilitarianism ethics is based on the greatest good for the greatest number meaning that the moral agent does what he/she thinks will be
Utilitarianism is the view of considering everyone’s benefit as equally important versus only considering my own. For any action, the morally correct thing to do is cause the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure or benefit for the greatest number possible; while at the same time causing the least amount of pain or unhappiness for the smallest number possible.
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
These different schools of thought have been supported by different philosophers to explain what they believe is the way that human behavior should be judged. In the case of ethical relativism, we 've seen that whether an act is right or wrong depends on how a society defines it. While one society may find a behavior to be acceptable, there may be another that does not, and therefore the morality of an act solely depends on how the society sees it. This means that determining whether an act is morally right or wrong is independent of any factors but what society decides it to be. On the other hand, ethical objectivism holds that an act is morally right or wrong no matter where it happens. Human will cannot change whether a behavior is considered appropriate depending on a specific situation. In this case, an act that is wrong is seen as such in any situation, no matter the rules of the society. This same way of thinking applies for acts that are morally good. Based on these observations, it can be said that ethical relativism is not a possible ethical
Imagine a child living in a hot, government owned apartment in Chicago. He has no father. With his single, jobless mother he struggles to the words of the founding fathers: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...” (The Declaration of Independence). This is one of the most famous phrases in the US Declaration of Independence and has become the underpinning of the dreams of millions of people around the world. Although the words are different, these sentiments are reflected in the political and economical policies of many democracies. While the notion of ‘happiness for all’ seems like the obvious solution to many of our persistent problems, we inevitably encounter conflicts between our actions and our morals. “The state is based on……the contradiction between public and private life, between universal and particular interests. For this reason, the state must confine itself to formal, negative activities.”(Marx, 1992). This essay focuses on the issues of a prominent theory, Utilitarianism as it blends and encompasses both areas of Economics and Ethics which have become the basis of our governmental bodies.
Utilitarianism can be defined as: the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarians seem to believe that humans only have two desires, or motivations: happiness and pain. They want as much happiness as possible and the least amount of pain as any other action. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, meaning that whether it is right, depends solely on its consequences.
1. Utilitarianism was described by J. Bentham as the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Utilitarianism is a holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the amount of happiness. It is therefore a form of consequentialism, which means that the moral value of an action is determined only by its outcome, so one can only weigh the morality of an action after thinking about all its potential consequences. Utilitarianism focuses more on the happiness of the greatest number whereas Aristotle focuses more on the happiness of the individual person Virtue ethics developed by Aristotle which is a moral theory that focuses on the development of virtuous character. In virtue ethics, character is the key to the moral life, for it is from a virtuous character that moral conduct and values naturally arise. Aristotle believes that the highest goal of humanity is the good life or Eudaimonia which means happiness and human flourishing. Developing virtues is the way to achieve a rich and satisfying life. According to him, virtues make
In ones adolescent years, an important figure or role model taught the values of morality, the importance between right and wrong and the qualities of good versus bad. As the years, decades, and centuries have passed by, the culture of morality and the principles that humankind lives by have shifted and changed over time. In the article, “Folk Moral Relativism”, the authors, Hagop Sarkissian, John Park, David Tien, Jennifer Cole Wright and Joshua Knobe discuss six different studies to support their new hypothesis. However, in order to understand this essay, one must comprehend the difference between moral objectivism and moral relativism, which is based on whether or not the view of what someone else believes in, is morally correct or incorrect. For instance, moral objectivism is not centered on a person’s beliefs of what is considered right and wrong, but instead, is founded on moral facts.
The world is constantly changing. New governments are being formed, land boundaries are changing, and our way of life is being questioned. The common factor in these changes is people. The things that shape ethics in our environment can be viewed in two different ways. There is a belief that some supreme being created life, and a different belief that we exist because of evolution. These different theories deal with morality, more specifically, Ethical Relativism and Ethical Objectivism. A relativist does not have an absolute stance on a position; there is no right or wrong, and an objectivist claims that some moral rules are correct. I will discuss both theories and give my opinion on which theory I hold.
Moral relativism, as Harman describes, denies “that there are universal basic moral demands, and says different people are subject to different basic moral demands depending on the social customs, practices, conventions, and principles that they accept” (Harman, p. 85). Many suppose that moral feelings derive from sympathy and concern for others, but Harman rather believes that morality derives from agreement among people of varying powers and resources provides a more plausible explanation (Harman, p. 12).The survival of these values and morals is based on Darwin’s natural selection survival of the fittest theory. Many philosophers have argued for and against what moral relativism would do for the world. In this essay, we will discuss exactly what moral relativism entails, the consequences of taking it seriously, and finally the benefits if the theory were implemented.
The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is based on culture or society. Implicit in the basic formulations of both theories, the moral code of a culture is neither superior nor inferior to any other. The codes of individual cultures are just different and there is no standard or basis upon which to perform any type of comparison. Therefore, under both theories, the lack of standards across cultures implies that attempts to judge relative correctness or incorrectness between them cannot be justified. For Cultural Relativism, it is perfectly normal that something one culture sees as moral, another may see as immoral.
Utilitarianism is one of the best known and influential moral theories. There are two different meanings to two words but at times, they can be the same perspective. Utilitarianism is different from ethical theories it makes the rightness and wrongness of an act dependent to a person. The right thing can be done from a bad motivation. There are consequences including good or bad by the act. It is between an action and their happiness or unhappy outcomes depending on the circumstances. There is no moral principle only itself of utilitarianism. It balances the individuality and community of happiness. The purpose of the morality is by making life better and increasing that amount of good deed. “Another aspect of utilitarianism is the belief that
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism that theorizes an action is as good as how many people it serves. These theories are all based on the outcome of one’s actions which differs from virtue ethics. In my opinion, this type of theory may not have a favorable result as it may suggest. For example, if a person robbed a bank to get money to support his family, there would be a good consequence. This man would be able to provide food and shelter for his family. In utilitarianism, or consequentialism, “the rightness or wrongness of an act or rule is solely a matter of overall nonmoral good produced in the consequences of doing that act or following that rule”