This theory is one where the right moral action is based on the one that brings about the most favorable results for everyone. In addition, with this theory rules are irrelevant and moral choices are not made by an individual adhering to any set guidelines or morals. For example, one day it may be a good action or choice to tell a lie in a certain situation, but the next it may be a wrong action or choice to tell a lie depending on the circumstances. (Vaughn, 2010, pg.
This is where we will discuss the first negative of situation ethics. Situation ethics is individualistic, because decisions must be made within the situation as it’s perceived to be. It isn’t easy to be certain that ones perception of the situation is correct. How can a specific individual, such as the Arrow, safely decide whats the most loving action? Humans don’t have an objective perspective and could end up justifying unloving actions on the basis of loving results that will never emerge.
Nagel states, “Whether we succeed or fail…depends to some extent on factors beyond our control” (Nagel 1). The way things turn out cannot merely influence how good or bad we are, but whether or not we are good in the first place. The way we are, the circumstances we face, and the way things turn out is due to luck and we cannot be held responsible. So what is one left to be responsible for? We may not have complete control over our lives, but let us not fail to pay attention to our intuitions and our experiences of it.
However, if Mill choices to look at my situation as a rule utilitarian’s then he would most likely disagree with my lying. Mill states, “Here the question is not whether one’s individual act would maximize goodness, but whether goodness would be maximized if everyone did the act (Ethics Theory and Issues, “John Stuart Mill (1806-1873): Revised Utilitarianism 127).” In this version of a utilitarianism, what's most important is
‘Ethical theories are the rules and principles that determine right and wrong for any given situation’ according to Crane and Matten (2004:76). Its contribution is either relativists which is what is right or wrong relying on the moral norms of our society such as, our culture or absolutists which is deciding what is right or wrong regarding the act, for instance, murder. However, absolutists is divided into Consequentialists (Teleological) which consists of Utilitarianism and ethical egoism and the Non-consequential (Deontological) which consists of divine command theories, Kant’s ethics of duty, virtue ethics, justice approach and the rights approach. The contribution to our understanding of ethical problems offered by 3 different ethical theories: Kant’s ethics of duty, the ethics of right and the ethics of justice. Firstly, Kant’s ethics of duty is defined by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).
This creates a problem in that morality impedes on the good because to be moral means to make appropriate sacrifices. What a person wants in life is not always going to be the best choice and thus a person has to give up certain things that he or she wanted for the ultimate good. Morality relies on the ability to make proper decisions, to distinguish between right and wrong, and to understand the subliminal consequences of one’s actions. In a piece known as “Spring and Autumn Annals” composed by Dong Zhongshu, it is mentioned how the term humaneness refers to ‘others,’ while the terms rightness refers to the ‘self’ (De Bary, 1999). As has been previously defined, rightness refers to a realm of morality and thus one can conclude that there is a certain amount of ‘self’ present in
Perhaps, the main hoe wants to maintain a certain image, and that image involves being in a stable relationship. In this situation, the innocent significant other is only used as a tool to help the main hoe achieve the outward validation he or she wants (since the relationship itself is not the “end” for the main hoe). As for the pro-side hoe argument that used the Theory of Utilitarianism to argue that the existence of side-hoes is moral, there appeared to be some logical flaws. The main argument, that the existence of the side hoe increased the overall happiness of all involved may not have been valid. The conclusion that, “overall happiness was maximized” did not necessarily follow from the premises that the innocent significant other was kept in the dark, and that the main hoe and his side hoe were happy together.
In this essay, I will explain the moral theory utilitarianism and outline its main claim; then I will present the most serious objection to utilitarianism: that it does not value justice; next, I will present utilitarianism’s refutation to the critique; lastly, I will evaluate utilitarianism’s reply and argue that utilitarianism can sufficiently answer this objection. While there are different schools within utilitarianism I will be focusing on its most common version: act utilitarianism (from this point on I will refer to it simply as “utilitarianism”). Utilitarianism is a moral theory that tells us what we should and should not do—more specifically, what is a virtuous or vicious action. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that
Through better or worse, success or failure, the outcome of events will be determined by the strength of my own abilities, rather than a lack of truth. Choosing to be honorable means more than simply being honest to others, it means being honest with yourself. Choosing to accept both your strengths and weaknesses, successes and failures, and triumphs and tragedies is truly what living honorably means. Essentially, most Honor Code violations stem from a person’s image of what they are capable of. Wether it is cheating on a test because you believe that you do not possess the knowledge to perform highly, plagiarizing work because you don’t think yours is good enough, or stealing because you believe that your own possessions do not meet societal expectations, the common theme is an insecurity in yourself, and accepting your flaws and strengths is what the essence of choosing honor is.
In general, on a popular argument for ethical relativism would be the untenability of objectivism. It is a persuasive justification for moral relativism because it is the best alternative following the failure of objectivism. The fact that moral objectivists themselves are uncertain, incongruent and unsettled on a standard moral system is the primary catalyst encouraging moral skepticism (IEP, Argument for Moral Relativism). Cultural relativism outlines that “an action is morally right, relative to a culture, just because it is right according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.” Conversely, if “an action is morally wrong, relative to a culture, just because it is wrong according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.” (Luco, Week 3 Notes, p.9) Cultural Relativism is simply a combination of the following three theses: 1. The only criterion of moral truth or falsehood is the moral code of a cultural group.
One of the ethical system that has come to mind is “Ethical Formalism.” This ethical system is “concerned solely with the inherent nature of the act” (Pollock, 33). What this means is that although initially the program was trying to be doing a “good deed,” by protecting us from threats, the deed is actually not good if the intentions are bad, or is for hidden motives. The one finding that took me back was the avoidance of detection, the lying to and false reporting to avoid detection, is unethical. I