Utilitarianism And Relativism Similarities

In contrast, utilitarianism is an ethics systems based on pleasure and well-being for all parties involved. This systems recommends making the decision that will bring the greatest amount of well-being to the greatest number of people

While these two theories deal with ethical behaviors they are very different in nature. According to The Encyclopedia Britannica (Rachels 2015) Relativism doesn’t consider the end result in situations, whereas Utilitarianism

so basically, relativism would be inconsistent because of the fact that is would essentially deny the beliefs of there being absolute values. so religious relativism basically maintains that one religion can be true for one person or culture but not for any other. Utilitarianism Ethics: Utilitarianism proposes the following principle: That an action must be weighed on the amount of happiness that the action will result in. In other words, a "good" action is an action that will make the most people happy. I personally think that utilitarianism is just another form of relativism.

The difference between utilitarianism and relativism is: Utilitarianism suggests that “rightness” comes in different levels and one action can be “righter” than the other. For example, A person can win a large amount of money from the lottery and give family members that may need some help, or they can donate most of it to charities which could help allot of people in need. Giving the money to family may feel good but donating the money to people that really needs it would be the “better” thing to do because it would be good for those people. This would be the “righter” and least selfish thing to do which, would mentally make that person feel like they did the better or “righter thing”. Relativism suggests that one action can be righter than

On the other hand, Cultural Relativism, focuses on a specific culture and their beliefs, practices, and ethical values of that culture and how the culture’s values are right for that specific culture or group (Hoff 2017). Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy of Act Utilitarianism would possibly criticize cultural relativism due to the idea that a specific culture and their beliefs, practices, and ethical values are right for that specific culture. Overall, a culture would possess a higher number of morally significant beings who are pleasured in that culture due to the idea that that was all they knew. Bentham would use that idea to measure the pleasure and pain of the morally significant beings in that culture/society and

Two main types of ethical relativism are cultural relativism and normative ethical relativism. Cultural relativism says that there are different cultures and they always have different ways of thinking behaving and learning from the generation before, and this can be seen in daily life just by how different countries do things like music, dress, and even politics. Normative ethical relativism says that there is no universal right or wrong in the universe instead it says that what is right or wrong is different from society to society and that there is no

From a relativist's perspective, moral values are only applicable within certain cultures and societies. Something that may be viewed as morally correct in the United States could be unethical in Zimbabwe and vice versa. For example, in Somalia, it is acceptable, or moral for a family to kill a female family member if she is raped, while here in the United States the murder of a family member is viewed as extremely unethical and cruel. A more simplistic example of this is the fact that it is not unethical in American culture to consume beef, while in India it is viewed as unethical. The reason for this is because of the diverse cultures and their own set of moral standards. This theory states that there are many values and ideas that can be considered morally correct while disagreeing with one another. However, there are also few downsides to this theory. Relativism may lead to immorality because of opposing perspectives and cultures. Just because one culture views something as good or bad, right or wrong, does not mean this is true. This theory is based off of personal preferences and values, which can lead to conflict and clashing of values. Relativism also does a poor job of establishing an absolute set of ethics, and does not take into consideration that the values and norms of a society can change over time.

In philosophy there are many theories that philosophers argue, James Rachels argues the main points of moral relativism, where he describes the differences within cultures. Philosophers attempt to prove their theories to be true, but it can be complicated because if someone proves one premise false of your argument then the entire argument is invalid. There are different types of relativisms that favor moral relativism, such as, personal belief relativism, societal belief relativism, and then there is the cultural beliefs argument. All of these topics of relativism fall into the same category as moral relativism, meaning they all have the same general statement. Which is one cannot declare what is morally right or morally wrong. Moral relativism is the umbrella term and the others are points that can affect it. Moral Relativism claims that there is no objective truth concerning morality, therefore no one can draw a line between what is right or wrong.

Freedom means nothing when people do not have the ability to exercise it. To do that, they need a minimum level of well-being. This position proceeds from a conviction that people have dignity based on their ability to choose. As a minimal condition for making these choices, people must have all of their basic needs met. For example, a homeless person's job choices might be constrained by the lack of an address for correspondence or even a place to take a shower. Welfare, proponents say, does not decrease people's motivation to work, as Gingrich argues. Rather, it gives them the opportunity to participate more productively in their society. As in the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, basic needs are typically understood as "food,

Although there are several similarities between religion and utilitarian, religion is not utilitarian. The basic idea of utilitarianism is hat actions are judged according to their consequences and the relevant consequence of every action is happiness. There is a similarity between religion and utilitarianism. For example, love includes wanting happiness and religious principles such as loving others the way you love yourself and doing to others what you expect them to you are founded on utilitarian principles. The ultimate goal for a utilitarian is happiness, which is also the main objective of religion. Utilitarian ethics replicates the main religious rules. A principle like not lying is wrong in the religious sense because it is against

The final areas addressed by Goodman were rape and clitoridectomy. Both of these actions are violations against another person. While it is known that both men and women are raped, rape is primarily recognized as a sexual crime against a woman. Rape not only involves forced sex; it often also includes assault, other physical injuries, and many times, even death. I can agree with Goodman (p. 92) “that rape is not a sexual crime but a power crime.” I also agree with Goodman’s statements: “Rape is wrong. It is always wrong. No circumstance can make it right.” (p. 92)

If you had the option to choose, would you rather live in a society where you are treated as a rational being or a world where your contentment in life could all be taken away as a means of contributing to someone else’s happiness. When reflecting upon ethics and the many different theories, it is no question that Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham come to mind. After all, two of the most pronounced ethical theories are Kantianism and Utilitarianism. These two principles are extremely important and have had endless impacts on ethics and the world as a whole. These philosophers, Kant and Bentham, worked to study moral nature and developed theories based on moral philosophy. Although they are quite contrasting,

Utilitarianism: Ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interest of man as a progressive being (p. 50). When it comes to utilitarianism, society can only achieve maximum happiness when the individuals come together for the greater good. A utilitarian approach chooses the action that has the best and overall consequences, limiting negative consequences and creating positive outcomes, therefore the utilitarian theory is a consequentialist theory. Apart from being a consequentialist theory, it’s also a welfarist theory. A welfarist theory is when one’s action must be evaluated due to their actions.

P6. If said component beliefs (B) of the third form of happiness are found true, the life evaluated by the third form of happiness (H) has value (V).

Moral relativism explains a point that when it comes to morals, right or wrong, people have their own opinion. Not everyone will think something is bad and not everyone will think something is good. The difference between moral relativism and virtue ethics is that actions do not matter. It is the type of person you are on the inside. Who you are on the inside will help you make righteous decisions, regardless of the circumstances. “An ethics focused on virtue encourages us to develop the good traits and get rid of the bad ones (Mackinnon).”