James Rachels’ on Normative Cultural Relativism Every culture has its own customs, traditions and beliefs that dictate the actions of its citizens. Cultural relativism states that although practices and ethical beliefs differ from society to society, it must be accepted as good, relative to each respective culture’s beliefs and moral code. Rachels believes that an act that may be frowned upon in one culture may in fact be totally acceptable in another. The theory of Cultural Relativism puts in action the idea of what people believe is morally right and how it relates to the culture that it is practiced in. Morals concern what is right and wrong.
Perhaps more so than Emotivists, Prescriptivists see ethical language as fairly meaningful. They believe that the terms used are able to create absolute rules that everyone ought to follow. It would seem that ethical language is seen by many as very meaningful, although for varying reasons. However agent centred theories such as Virtue Ethics would argue that our main focus of morality should be on becoming as virtuous as possible, rather than deciding what is meant by ethical language. Therefore it would seem that perhaps morality should be more focussed on individuals’ actions rather then defining what is meant by ‘good’ and
For me I think it starts with morality in a person. Morality, good manners, decency, and other virtues must be teachable (Feinberg, 585). Morality tries to identify and explain why some people do wrong things and do the right form of act that should be followed by everybody. However, Psychological Egoism is directly opposite with the need of good morals. It is like if I'm given a task to do, I work toward satisfying the standard in order to achieve my own self goals.
For utilitarian school of thought, an individual strives to do the most good, even at the expense of the minority. Utilitarianism and Kantianism find the basis of their differences in the idea that the ends justify the means. Utilitarian beliefs support this idea while Kantian philosophy rejects this. Modern ethics were devised from these two basic ethical beliefs in an attempt to combine the best aspects. Generally, the morally “right” action benefits the majority while affecting the fewest amount in a negative way.
Deontology is the theory that an individual does something because they feel it is the right thing to do at that time. They do not look further into the action or bring consequences to mind. They simply believe it is the
Assess Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a consequentialist approach to ethics, meaning the consequences of an act are what matters. The utilitarian answer as to what to do in any situation is that we should always act to maximise utility. There are two different interpretations of utilitarianism; the positive being that we ought to do that which brings about the greatest happiness of the greatest number and the negative being that we ought to do that which minimises pain or suffering. Utilitarianism is teleological, or goal orienteered, meaning that the end matters more than the means used to achieve the end. The various forms present two major problems; the problem of justice, and the issue of having to predict the consequences of an action.
Virtue ethics emphasizes the role of one's character and the virtues that one's character embodies for determining or evaluating ethical behavior. Virtue Ethics does not merely adopt a set of rules; it changes depending on the decision makers themselves who form the framework for this theory. Virtue ethics is the most realistic and holistic and flexible among the three theories, primarily because it employs the concept of virtues and not rules. Sometimes, moral dilemmas have no answer. However, followers of Deontology and Consequentialism may argue that there is a right or wrong thing to do even in such situations.
The weaknesses of virtue ethics outweigh the strengths, discuss (35) The definition of a virtue is habitually doing what is right; being a virtuous person requires the practice of a certain kind of behaviour. There are a number of arguments for and against virtue ethics, most argue for the formation and growth of us via practical wisdom, which allows us to make the right decisions by using out conscience. Virtue ethics is mainly supported by Aristotle, Phillipa Foot and Alisdair Makentyre. Vitue ethics is based on different virtues which a person should possess in order to reach Eudemonia, Eudemonia should be the ultimate goal in everyone’s life as this leads to ultimate happiness and therefore a healthier and better society. One major strength of virtue ethics is that it allows the moral agent to make ethical decisions based on his or her moral well-being, not just based on what is legally right.
Therefore, deontologists follow the belief that certain actions are inherently good if they follow the stated rules even if the action has bad consequences, it can still be defined as moral. In contrast, teleological ethical systems focus completely on the outcomes and consequences of an act. Teleology is a theory of ethics according to which the rightness of an act is determined by it's end. Also known as consequentialism, actions that result in what can be considered as a good consequence must be good and so the end result will justify the reason that the act was committed in the first place. Both deontological and teleological ethical systems use opposing ethical guides yet they both have the same aim, to help people make moral decisions.
), but still subscribes to the overall view that action is purposeful (even if the purpose is mistaken sometimes). Constructivism is a bit harder to define. Obviously if rationalism sees action as purposeful, then the most major difference is that in constructivism this is not necessarily the case. However, constructivism doesn't want to say that people just bump