Relativism Vs Utilitarianism

Hobbes and Kant both give a different account of the foundations of morality. Drawing from Hobbes’ Leviathan and Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, I will compare their understanding of the foundations of morality. I will discuss the conflicting accounts of the role played by reason versus the role played by desire and inclination in the determination of what is good, evil, right or wrong. Hobbes claims that ordinary experiences establish human beings as self-interested and are driven by desire or aversion and that is why morality is grounded by subjective self-interests. On the other hand, Kant provides a purely rational principle for ordinary views about unconditional moral value, morality has a universal law that applies to all rational beings at all times. The following paper will identify and explain the key points and sources of difference between Hobbes and Kant. First, I will explain both understandings of morality. Second, I will describe how the account of the foundations of morality differs in human nature, rationality and conceptions of morality. I will, in conclusion, argue that Hobbes’ account of morality best works with our ordinary experiences and moral convictions.

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.

There has been many theories and debates throughout history over the meaning of morality. What makes something bad or good? Is it the same principle for everyone? Thomas Nagel tackles these questions in his article titled “The Objective Basis of Morality” while also giving his definition of morality and all its exclusions. He accomplishes this by using real world scenarios such as taking a book out from the library as his examples of the complex nature of morality.

Throughout this paper, I will contrast and compare two moral theories in attempt to uncover what one provides a better argument and can be applied as a universal moral code. The two moral theorists Immanuel Kant and J.S Mill have created two distinctly different theories on morality and how to develop a universal moral code. Both theories focus on intentions and consequences. Kant believes that the intentions and reasons of our actions can be measured and defined as morally correct, where as Mill believes that our intentions really play no role in morality, and that we should focus on the consequences and outcomes of our actions to evoke the most happiness for the most people. Even though both philosophers make incredibly different

J.S. Mill’s Principle of utility, also known as the greatest happiness principle, is an ethical philosophy that looks at the development of morals and how people choose to follow these morals. The basis of Utilitarianism is the idea that our morals are designed to create the most amount of happiness while minimizing the amount of pain felt. Mill’s utilitarianism looks at everyone’s happiness as equal, with individual actions concerning the feelings of everyone equally. Utilitarianism argues that decisions are made based on whether that decision will create happiness for the most while minimizing pain for the least amount of people, looking at the opportunity costs of various decisions and using this to lead to the best course of action. From this Mill suggests the idea of the first principle of morality.

He is comparing and trying to relate two things so dissimilar that it boggles the mind to think of comparing them in the first place. To begin with, Rachels seems to be implying that since, one is obviously wrong and that we have factual evidence to the contrary, that is what makes them wrong. That works, but when it's applied to something like morality and ethics like he is trying to do, it makes no sense. Since when and where has there ever been a fact based moral code? Who says morally what is correct and what is not within society or for that matter for the good of humankind? Reading further, he states that the whole point is that the original conclusion does not follow from the premise laid forth by the cultural relativists. This is true based on what he gives in the second example, but his example is construed in order to get such results. Next Rachels goes on to further try and prove cultural relativism has some problems. In the next section, he evaluates the seriousness of the cultural relativist and what that exactly entails. Looking at the consequences, he says that we, as cultural relativists, would have to condone the actions of another culture as not being less inferior. There is no problem there. Where the problem begins is when he brings up slavery and genocide, things that are considered immoral to our society in particular. On a personal

When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a

Cultural relativism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Is the thesis that a person’s culture strongly influences her modes of perception and thought” Most cultural relativists add to this definition saying that there is no standard of morality. This means that morality is relative to the particular society that one lives in. Prominent ethicist James Rachels has written against this view in his work titled The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. This paper will be focused on evaluating Rachels’ critique of cultural relativism, and whether it was right for him to endorse

Jeremy Bentham is a teleological/consequential philosopher or consequentialist, one who focuses on the consequences and ends instead of intention and actions. Bentham’s focus carries more weight than that of Immanuel Kant or John Stuart Mill and their views. Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy focuses on measuring pain and pleasure for the greatest number of morally significant beings through their actions. Bentham presents guidelines that measure the intensity, duration, (un) certainty, propinquity, fecundity, and extent of the pain and pleasure that a certain action beholds and uses these measurements to determine if the action promotes the greatest good (being pleasure in Bentham’s case) for the greatest number of morally significant beings (Hoff 2017).

Humanity is taught to be moral, to do good and avoid evil. However those lessons become foolish when we ask what is morality, the thing that we are told to achieve. For many morality is doing what is good and doing good is moral. This roundabout answer may be satisfactory to some that only look at the surface of the issue, however once the digging begins the grad question of morality comes into question. While this question has been looked an infinite number of times without being universally solved certain patterns have been made in the conclusions great thinkers and scholars come to regarding morality. One of these particular ideas involves a rationalist perspective that rationality defines morality or that moral failings imply rational

Relativism, defined by Rachel’s is the differentiation of cultural codes among societies, in respect to morality. Insofar the problem that is faced is whether or not there is a universal moral code all people can abide too? In explaining Rachel’s and Williams standpoint on Relativism and what they argue for, I on the other hand, will argue for relativism, in using some of Rachel’s views, in rejecting Williams conclusion of relativism. For Williams perceives no one outside of a society should impend on the social matters of a differing nation. To argue why his view is abstract, As well in many moral degrees, his philosophical conclusion could never be followed. For the axioms of morality are distinct, in varying situations, in which leads us to compare traditions, to see if they are right or wrong..

Where Ruth Benedict believed morality is relative, James Rachels disagrees. This is where I would have to agree with James Rachels criticisms regarding the Cultural Difference Argument. The premise argues that different cultures have different moral codes. The conclusion argues that there is no “objective” truth in morality and “right” and “wrong” are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture. Cultural relativists argue from facts about different cultural outlooks to the conclusion about the status of morality. Rachels uses the shape of the earth as an example. In some societies, people believe the Earth is flat. In others, people believe it is spherical. If using the Cultural Difference Argument, our premise would be that societies disagree about the shape of the earth. We would then conclude there is no fact of the matter about the shape of the earth (Rachels p.20-21).

Mill's principle of utility seeks for the logical rationality of ethics through the consequences of actions as the consideration determining their morality, therefore the possession of happiness as opposed to the avoidance of pain. Utilitarianism might be an instance of a more general theory of right consequentialism, which supports that right and wrong can only, be reviewed by the kindness of consequences. This common kind of theory can be easily understood by considering the form of consequentialism. Consequentialism states that an act is right if, of those accessible to the agent at the time, it would produce the most overall value in the end. Utilitarian

In chapter one of James Rachels’s What is Morality, he argues that at the very minimum, morality is using reason to guide one 's decisions, while keeping in mind the interests of those who will be affected by one’s choice, without giving more weight to one individual over another. He supports this thesis by describing a couple of morally ambiguous situations regarding humanity and life.

In James Rachels’ book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, he expresses ideas within the concluding chapter, “What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory be like?” that lay an silhouette of every moral approach we have discussed so far and compounding it into a final discussion with a couple of final contentions towards a comprehensive understanding of morality and the approaches we can make as moral guides to make decisions that are virtuous for each class without exception. Rachels’ gives thoughtful perspective on all subjects that we have learned about and makes final accumulations for the way we can decide to use these for our own benefit. While then expressing the virtues we must value for ourselves to have a best plan, and the ways our choices can help others in a positive aspect.