Moral relativism gets construed as the argument of the ethical proposition not representing the universal truths and instead takes on making claims based on culture, history, and society whereas moral objectivism gets argued as the aspect which allows the moral truths to assume existence based on the opinion.
In consideration of the depicted, it can get argued that moral objectivism offers an adequate approach to matters pertaining ethics than relativism. The underlying reason for the drawn is based on its ability to allow the independent existence of truth without any aspect of influence which is contrary to relativism which considers, culture, history and even the situation before assuming a final position.
Philosophers/ Serial Killers Objective Moral Standard
Bundy (Serial Killer) Moral Relativism
Rand (Philosopher) Moral objectivism
Bentham and Mill (Philosophers) Utilitarianism
Kant (Philosopher) Grounding Morality based on priori principles
Jesus (Philosopher) Ethical Values
Eagle Man (Philosopher) Relativism
Aristotle (Philosopher) Moral Relativism and Objectivism
The ethical theory in question mainly gets discussed to get associated with one of the greatest British philosophers John Stuart Mill who lived between 1806 and 1873 and developed the theory from a plain hedonistic version which got brought to light by one Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism, therefore, gets construed as an ethical theory that gives a statement on the best action as that which maximizes utility. The theory informs the opinion of the meaning of worth getting determined by the resulting outcomes. It may hence get viewed in the aspect of actions getting based on certain consequences. The theory may thus judge an action poorly since the result gets noted as consequential.
The philosophy above was developed by one Immanuel Kant mainly to describe the contemporary position of the philosophy of mind. The philosophy also goes further to argue the viewpoint of rational beings as having dignity and thus must get respected. Like other theories, the action involved must get judged as good because it dwells more of a position of respect and the philosophy in mind.
Moral Dilemma 2
According to the two viewpoints of the philosophers John Stuart Mill on utilitarianism and Immanuel Kent on Kantianism, it can get claimed that their response to situations was different both to Aristotle and Jesus. Aristotle believes that human beings assume the existence of rational beings and human life gets coupled with activities which pertain rationality. His reasoning on the matter highlights that human beings live their lives by making and deciding on particular choices on the foundation of reason and finally making decisions based on the choices selected. He also notes that the decisions made may also relate to the human beliefs and desires.
Therefore, in the two cases provided, Aristotle would agree more with the approach taken by Kantianism because it expounds more about human beings getting noted as rational beings whose ideas are informed by reason and must get respected. He fails to agree with John Stuart Mill on utilitarianism because the theory fails to recognize the vitality of human beings and defines underlying consequences for actions committed.
On the other hand, Jesus based his objective moral approach from the dimension of ethical values which outlines certain standards that if not followed may result in certain consequences. The depicted has even triggered discussions on whether Jesus was a utilitarian. Most of his ideas related to those of the utilitarianism hence the depicted. Therefore Jesus would, therefore, approve the response of Immanuel Kent through Kantianism as a better approach because it outlines outcomes depending on the action committed. Wrong actions attract consequential outcomes.
Justice and Care Perspective
Justice and care perspective get noted on individuals making ethical decisions based on the aspect equality, impartiality, rights and the connectedness which they have with others respectively.
From the justice perspective, the best thing to do would get informed by the wife having the right of knowing the truth. I would, therefore, out rule the information of being with my friend the previous night but keep dumb on the reasons which made him not to be with the wife. The depicted will still allow me to assume a general level of the matter as my friend defends where he spent and focused on reforming their relationship.
On the other hand, arguing from the dimension of care perspective would compel me to cover up for my friend to save his relationship with the wife. Care perspective takes keen consideration of connection either by relationship or other forms.
There would exist no difference even if am friends with the cheated on spouse instead of the cheating spouse from the justice perspective because of the essence of equality, impartiality, and rights. The difference would mainly get noted on the care perspective because I will analyze my friendship with the cheated on spouse hence she will get guaranteed of knowing the truth.
Definition of Utilitarian Calculus and how to decide what is better according to it
It gets construed as the side of reasoning used to realize the best policy through the determination of the actual amount of pleasure or pain caused by the action. Therefore, the only way of determining what is better gets founded on the total calculation of the pain and pleasure caused as highlighted earlier.
A maxim gets regarded as a rule of principle in which individual acts upon. For example, it expects that if a person expects other people to fulfill their promises, the person must be the first person to accomplish the promise. It, therefore, passes the part of Categorical Imperative which stipulates certain commands.
Consequences vs. Duty
Brief definition of utilitarianism and deontology
Utilitarianism gets argued as the belief of a morally right and accepted action getting founded on the action's utility to the greatest number of people.
1) It gets noted as attractive since it aims at creating happier life to the people.
2) It is also straightforward and works on a particular principle of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.
1) It gets argued as unpredictable due to the undetermined nature of the future.
2) It is also immeasurable since it gets impossible to assign values for pleasure and pain.
Deontology gets argued as the ethical theory which stipulates that the morality of an action should get founded on the justification of the action being right or wrong as opposed to its consequences.
1) The first strength gets drawn on motivation getting valued over consequences especially those beyond the limit.
2) The dimension of justice is regarded as absolute despite the position of the majority.
1) Its first weakness gets noted on the moral duties appearing as arbitrary.
2) The principle of universality may seem absurd when taken to logical extremes.
Prima Facie Deontology
Prima Facie deontology gets noted as an aspect of the morality of an action which gets obvious and self-evident. The current ethical dilemma about it gets based on the conflict between duties and various obligations.
The depicted relates more to a person than an action. It looks at an individual's moral character when carrying out an action. For example, it concentrates on moral thinking rather than the rules used in the discharge of the action.
Reason vs. Emotion
Plato gets noted as the philosopher who emphasized more on reason. His emphasis gets highlighted in his argument on the metaphysics. On the other hand, Socrates considers emotion more important because of the portrayal of human nature. His consideration for the depicted also gets guided by the belief of the mind which exists as a wrong part and gets controlled by the emotions.
In ethics, reason serves the role of faculties that deals with rational reflection, sensations and lastly experience. Emotions also get noted as important due to their expression of human feelings though it fails to exist independently. The reason is, therefore, more important for a moral person since it determines emotion and allows for proper decision making.
Equality & Universality
On the view of equality and universality, Kant gets depicted to present radical approach on the place of women in his philosophy. He argues for the equality and freedom of all human beings and finally concludes by imaging husbands as excellent people within their households. Some of his critics claim that it gets typical for a man of Kant's time to reason in that dimension and agrees with his assertion of equality and freedom. On the other hand, Jesus incorporates equality and universality to his philosophy by mirroring human beings as equal before God.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the midtermguru.com website, please click below to request its removal:
- 5 Branches of Philosophy - Essay Sample
- Questions on Anselm's and Gaunilo's Defining God - Paper Example
- Philosophy Essay on Our Knowledge of the World Around Us
- Jacque Derrida's Limitations - Essay Example
- Essay on Personal Learning Philosophy
- Does Morality Depend On Religion - Essay Example
- Apology of Socrates by Plato