Ethical Objectivism Vs Ethical Relativism

Ethical relativism and ethical objectivism, what are they and how have we come understand them in our time? These two topics have been a center point for many arguments weather you actually talk about it or not. As much as we like to argue in this world in our daily lives we fail to see what stance we hold. This might be because we aren’t educated enough to realize it or it just might be because we don’t care. We will be discussing the differences between ethical relativisms and ethical objectivism so we can get a better grasp and understanding of these two topics. Ethical relativism is mainly based on what the individual person or society believe. It is what they see as morally right and wrong. Ethical objectivism is the view that some moral

John Stuart Mill begins the explanation of his version of Utilitarianism by replying to common misconceptions that people hold regarding the theory, and as a result describes his own theory more clearly. The main issue that Mill raises is that people misinterpret the word “utility” as in opposition to “pleasure”. However, utility is actually defined as pleasure itself and also the absence of pain.

Second, there is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another can. Third, the moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many. Forth, there is no “universal truth” in which moral truths hold for everyone, in every situation. Fifth, the moral code of a society determines what is right within that society. For example, if the moral code of a society believes that it is acceptable to murder people with blond hair, then that action is right, at least within that society. Sixth, it is arrogant for us to try to judge the conduct of other people. Instead, we should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures.

Ethical relativism encouraged the view that we should be tolerant of other cultures even if their practices seem abhorrent to us, as it is their own beliefs. Relativists believe we have no right to questions the practices and beliefs of other cultures. Objectivists, however, attempt to establish a set of values and rules based on what they consider basic moral principles that affect all

For Mill utilitarianism is a theory that is based on the belief that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” also known as the “greatest happiness principle. As “happiness is the sole basis of morality; people rarely want anything but happiness”. Mill believes people’s achievement of goals and ends – virtuous living should be considered a part of the individual’s happiness. Mill defines happiness as pleasure without pain as pleasure can vary in quality and quantity. Mill writes in Utilitarianism, happiness is: “not a life of rapture, but moments of such, in an existence made up of few and transitory pains, many and various pleasures, with a decided predominance of the active over the passive, and having as the foundation of the whole not to expect more from life than it is capable of bestowing.” Mill thought ethics should focus instead on quality of pleasure rather than quantity of pleasure. He divides the pleasures into two categories, that is, higher and lower. Hence, Mill utilitarianism was his differentiation between higher intellectual pleasures and lower bodily pleasures Mill argues that higher pleasures hold actual value; the higher pleasures are more appeasing to one’s feelings. He draws a

Simply put, John Stuart Mill believed that the end of all action is happiness and, in turn, objectivism about intrinsic value as justifiable by argument. “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or 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” (Ch. II, paragraph 2). Mill describes utility as the foundation of morals based on the promotion of happiness. He argues that some kinds of pleasures are deemed more desirable and more valuable than other pleasures. It is implausible, he maintains, to hold that “the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone” (Ch. II, Paragraph 4). According to Mill, he describes the intellectual pleasures, as opposed to sensory pleasures

Utilitarianism is a moral theory which was created by John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill said that Utilitarianism is “doing the act that creates the most pleasure, with the least pain, for the most people.” (17.Mill.) Utilitarianism has to do with people’s happiness since Utilitarian’s see that every act you do should be creating the most pleasure for the most people. The theory of Utilitarianism does not always worry about just one single person, but worries about the greater good for all people. Utilitarian’s can see a single person as a utility if the one person is benefiting many other people. John Stuart Mill discusses a lot about humans and their pleasures and different levels of pleasure and happiness they experience. He also gives many examples of how humans seek pleasures in life. He believes that there are different levels of pleasure, which is measured by Utils. Mill also says that having desires comes with what we can see, essentially, the more we can see something the more desire we will have for it. Mill speaks strictly from a Utilitarian view point

One of the first misconceptions of Utilitarianism that Mill addresses is that it is often interpreted as the opposition of pleasure. Mill corrects this falsehood by stating the following: “Those who know anything about the matter are aware that every writer, from Epicurus to Bentham, be contradistinguished from pleasure, but pleasure itself, together with exemption from pain; and instead of opposing the useful to the agreeable or the ornamental, have always declared that the useful means these, among other things” (Mill, 2007, p. 5). Utilitarianism is, in

In this paper, I will argue against moral relativism as the correct way to judge human morality. There are several issues with moral relativism, and I will focus on why moral relativism’s argument is false and also consider the implications of accepting relativism. I will propose an alternative framework for making moral judgments about right and wrong and consider relativist objections.

1. According to Mill, why are some pleasures more worthwhile than others? Mill suggested that “It is …. Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool dissatisfied.” (pg.118) When he mentioned that some pleasures are more worthwhile than others. He may imply that the pleasures that humans sought out for are of worthwhile if it means not jeopardizing another one’s happiness. Mill goes further and defends utilitarianism that explains that “the supreme principle of morality is to act in order to produce as much happiness as possible.” (pg.118) If the idea was to maximize as much happiness as possible, then it should be noted that any pleasure that does not meet such criteria can lead to an dismantled state for many and for anyone trying to seek a win for an argument.

Mill writes of utilitarianism in the eponymous work Utilitarianism. According to his work utilitarianism is a means of deciding the moral value of actions. Mill’s theory takes a consequentialist view of actions, saying that the moral worth of an action is decided by the outcome, or consequence. This decision of moral worth is determined by whether the outcome maximizes happiness and minimizes the reverse of happiness. Mill writes that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Happiness is defined as pleasure and the absence of pain according to Mill, and the action must be considered for the outcome it brings to the most people. This happiness, or pleasure and lack of pain,

A discussion of moral theories must begin with a discussion of the two extremes of ethical thinking, absolutism and relativism. Moral Absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards where moral questions are judged and can be deemed right or wrong, regardless of the context. Steadfast laws of the universe, God, nature itself are the forces that deem an action right or wrong. A person’s actions rather than morals and motivations are important in an Absolutism proposition. Moral Relativism states, that the moral propositions are based on Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the

“Ethical relativism theory believes there is no universal accepted ethical standard and no objective right or wrong.”( Velasquez, M.August, 1992)Morality or what is considered right or wrong depends on the moral norms of society and can only be judged on its own. An actions that may be morally right in one society many not be considered morally right to another, albeit the practices may be different their fundamental moral principles are the same. This does not imply that all practices are relative. There are local customs regarding dress attire along with government customs whereas torture is governed by a universal moral standard. The underlying reason for the beliefs or practices helps us understand that universal moral standards can exist even if moral practices and beliefs are different between cultures. “The treatment of the Jews in Nazi society is morally reprehensible regardless of the moral beliefs of Nazi society.” (Velasquez, M.August, 1992) Ethical relativism does not recognize that some societies are less developed. Velasquez, M.August, 1992

In his piece, “Utilitarianism”, John Stuart Mill analyzes the concept of pleasure being the highest good people should strive for. To understand this analysis, one must understand the terms of which Mill uses the word “happiness”. Mill describes happiness as being pleasure in the absence of pain. Another term that one would need to understand for this analysis is the term utility. Utility means the same as happiness. For example, when Mill states that someone should do the action the generates the greatest amount of utility, then he is saying the same as that person should do the action whichever generates the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure. Mill builds on this definition saying the right action is the action that produces the highest amount of happiness or utility. Mill would refer to this as the greatest happiness principle. For example, if someone was deciding between hanging out with friends or studying a test, that person should decide whichever action produces the highest amount of utility or happiness. Furthermore, he explains that there are different kinds of pleasure and that some pleasures are more desirable than other pleasures. For example, according to Mill, one might find achieving a high grade on an exam more satisfying than a simple pleasure such as watching a football game. Mill gives a specific example in that a person who achieves the intellectual or higher end pleasure; that person

Cultural and ethical relativisms are widely used theories that explain differences among cultures and their ethics and morals. Morality deals with individual character and the moral rules that are meant to govern and limit one’s character. On the other hand Ethics is somewhat interchangeable with morals, but it actually defines the principles of right conduct, thus to some extent, enlarging its scope to a societal or communal level. Ideally, ethics play a vital role in determining the dos and don’ts when dealing with the society. This essay will discuss what ethical realism is, analyzing why ethical relativism is unsound and unreliable in relation to the relevant evidence and literature, providing valid reason to ascertain why this is the case.