What Is Morality, Cultural Relativism - Assignment Example

Question one: "What is Morality?" Morality entails how people make moral judgments in their lives. It relates with how we ought to live. Morality entails how human beings can carry themselves in a righteous manner. There are various theories that tend to describe morality. Determining what is right is not a very easy thing. Moral philosophy can be defined as an attempt of determining a systematic understanding of the nature of morality. A perfect example is of a baby Theresa, who after her birth, her brain failed to develop normally. Her parents and doctors thought it wise to harvest crucial body parts like kidneys and heart to benefit other children. However, according to Florida laws harvesting body parts can only be done when a person is dead and killing baby Theresa would not be acceptable. Questions, therefore, erupts on who could be morality right. Three essential aspects can determine the essence of moral reasoning. The first aspect is that there should be a declared position or belief. The other is the application of that belief or position to the case at hand and the assumed conclusion the basis of stated logic. The argument related to baby Theresa has benefits in that it is alright to benefit others without harming another person. In this case, transplanting organs from Theresa would benefit others without harming her, and hence it is a moral reasoning. It is unwise to argue that it is wrong to use some people as means to the ends of others. Using Theresa’s organs would be using her. However, it is essential to consider whether keeping Theresa alive is essential in any way and from hence one can determine the essentiality of transplanting Theresa’s parts. From biblical concepts John 15:13 and 1 John 3:16 support the transplantation of Theresa’s parts in that it is real love to lay one’s life for the sake of others. Another argument that can define transplanting Theresa’s parts as monstrous is arguing that taking Theresa’s life shows that it is right to take children’s life for the sake of others. This argument is based on prediction and hence not moral. Moral judgments need to be backed with good reasons, and they also need impartial considerations. Feelings, however, can mislead people by making moral judgments. Judging one’s logic should be done through getting facts straight, ensuring an intelligent application of moral principles and remaining impartial. Morality, therefore, is the efforts to guide one’s conduct by reason. Question two "Cultural Relativism." The basic philosophy related to cultural relativism states “the notion of right is in the folkways." There are basic elements related to the cultural relativism’s philosophy. One of them is that there are different moral codes in different societies. There is no available objective standard that could be used in determining a social culture that is better than the other. The moral code of the society has no special status. The other element is that there are no universal truths in ethics. The other element is that moral codes of a society determine what is right. The last element is that judging the conduct of others is mere arrogance. Cultural relativism is a theory about moralitys nature. The form of argument indicates that different cultures have different perceptions of a particular thing. For example, Greeks believed that it was wrong to eat the dead while the Callatians believed eating the dead is right. This implies that these arguments are neither right nor wrong it is just a matter of opinion. The basic argument indicates that different cultures have different morals. Secondly, in morality there is no objective truth. Right or wrong solely depends on someones opinion which varies by culture. However, the conclusion about the issue in the subject does not follow the premise. This fact implies that although people may disagree about a particular issue it does not mean that there is no objective right or wrong. This just proves that people disagree. Considering these aspects people will seize considering certain moral codes better than those of others or criticizing other people’s moral codes. Cultural relativeness also tends to ask whether there are similarities in different cultures. It hence implied that although different cultures have particular beliefs that are different from those of other cultures it does not mean these cultures are different. This is because the difference is in beliefs but not values. The best way of judging a culture’s practices is by considering whether a certain practice promotes the people affected by this practice. The other way of judging practices of a culture is determining whether there is a better alternative to these cultures in terms of promoting these cultures’ welfare. People fear criticizing other people’s practices for a number of reasons. This should not be the case because criticizing practices of a given community does not mean that one is criticizing the entire community. When criticizing, it is important to keep the argument rational, to deal with facts and also remain impartial. The bottom line of it is that even believes in cultures differ; values are all the same. Question three "Utilitarianism." This video starts with a scenario of Tiffany, a production supervisor who came to find that majority of the employees who were working in the company were children. She is in an ethical dilemma on what to do after discovering that if these children seize working in this company; their parents will end up in severe poverty. Utilitarianism can be well viewed through Jeremy Bentham, who existed between 1748 and 1832. He advocated for aspects such equal rights for women, the abolition of slavery among others. He discussed the principle of utility. The principle of utility indicates that morality is not a matter of pleasing God or faithfulness of an individual to abstract rules. He also argued that morality is nothing more than an attempt to bringing as much happiness as possible. People should choose alternatives that will bring the best overall consequences for all the involved parties. This simply means that people need to look for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. There three propositions of Utilitarianism. What matters in the actions whether good or evil is the consequences of the action. When assessing consequences what matters is happiness or unhappiness that comes as a result of consequences. The third proposition is that there no happiness that surpasses that of another person rather happiness is equal. Utilitarianism tries to answer the question whether happiness is everything. Hedonism is one aspect that tries to define happiness and unhappiness. Hedonism implies that anything that that tends to make someone unhappy is anything that seems unfortunate to a particular person. There are things that make people such as art and friendship among others. Things that make people tend to make them happy because people know they are good. However, people do not think they are good because they make them happy. This implies that hedonism does not have it right. Happiness rather is the response we have in attaining things we perceive as good. Utilitarianism can be contrary to justice is it can sacrifice justice of a person for the sake of the happiness of many. Utilitarianism can be misleading in that it can easily cast aside rights of an individual for the sake of generating the happiness of many. Question four "Ethical Egoism." According to Ayn Rand, ethical egoism’s philosophy indicates that the highest moral purpose of an individual is the achievement of his personal happiness. It entails that every person has no other duly other than pursuing his or her personal interests exclusively. A perfect example of this aspect is that 15,000 children die daily of malnutrition while in 2007 America spent approximately 9.6 USD on movie tickets. This implies that entertainment was of much value than feeding the hungry. Ethical egoism, therefore, implies that every individual need to spend on his or her personal interests exclusively. According to Ayn Rand people, should promote their personal interests as well as those of others. He also indicated that people should avoid actions that will help others. Lastly, people need to do things that bring pleasure to them. Ethical egoists indicated that helping others can turn to be wrong in a number of ways. One of the ways is that helping others does no good rather it amounts to wrong most of the times. This is because it is difficult to know the interest of the person being helped hence helping can turn to be offensive. They also argued that altruism tends to rob people of their value. If one helps another person, the person being helped has been robbed his or her value. They also noted that there is a hidden unity in rules. This implies that personal interests might be beneficial but at times this might not be the case always. These aspects tend to be a problem. The other problem is that ethical egoism tend to be discriminative in that it creates two groups one of an individual as well as others. People need to take care of others since their interests are comparable to those of others. This implies that ethical egoism is a misleading doctrine. People need to help others since their needs are equally important as theirs unless there is a justifiable fact of not helping them. Question five "Absolutism." A question of whether to lie so as to release one from a snare is justifiable or one should talk the truth irrespective of the condition at hand is one aspect catered for in the aspect of absolutism. According to Kant, the word “ought” is often used in non-moral circumstances. According to Kant, moral requirements imply that one ought to do something without deviating in any way. Moral requirements are very categorical unlike ought which tends to be hypothetical. One need to act according to Maxim in the manner he or she will act can easily become a universal law. For example, if one decides to lie there is a possibility that people can start lying hence lying will become a universal law. According to Kant, people should do what they are willing to make a universal law. If one is lying, he or she is implying that it is permissible for everybody to lie. This rule will be self-defeating, and hence people should not lie. According to Kant people are never sure of the consequences, they should, therefore, avoid the known evils. The bottom of this philosophy is that one should adhere to what he or she knows is right regardless of the situation at hand. People will be held accountable for the consequences received when one was fully aware that his or her actions are not right. The philosophy is sound in the fact that it emphasizes on doing the right without any compromise. Many people believe that there are situations that one has to twist the reality for safety purposes, and hence Kant’s recommendation tends to contrast with people’s belief. Question six "Religion and Morality." These aspects start from the notion that morality has an origin. The context starts by asking whether morality comes from morons bearing in mind that electricity comes from electrons. The source of morality is important. The context tends to find out why God came up to a conclusion that it is wrong to lie or to kill or other aspects as indicated in the Ten Commandments. There are two theories that tend to find the source of morality from the religious context. Divine command theory is one of the theories alongside the theory of natural law. According to divine command theory, morally right means commanded by God while morally wrong entails forbidden by God. There two problems associated with divine command theory. One of them is it leads to an arbitrary God while the other one is that it leads to a morality separate from God. The theory of natural law states that God has designed a world whereby everything has a purpose and need to be used for its intended purpose. There are three main points linked with the theory of natural law. The first point is the world is a rational order that has a purpose. To understand the purpose of the things in existence one need to understand what the thing is, how it came to existence the material it is made of, the material it is made of, and its purpose. Nature has power to describe how things are and ought to be. The last point is that God made people rational. The bottom line of these two arguments is that everything is considered moral because God commanded them to be that way. Question seven "Virtue Ethics." Virtue ethics encompasses the moral philosophy. This context starts by asking Aristotle’s question “what is the good of man?” when considering the aspect of morality. The question also aims at discovering the trend of characters that make one a good person. Greeks considered virtues as the source of moral living. Christians determine moral in terms of divine commands while the moral law aims at discovering the right thing that need to be done. In the year 1958, Anschombe indicated that the modern moral philosophy was misguided since it rested on a law that did not have a law-giver. In the Bible, Jesus concentrated more on virtues and habitual characters rather than laws. Jesus in the book of John 15:9-17 told his disciples to remain in his love by observing His commands and hence he was more on virtues love being one. According to Aristotle, virtues are character traits that tend to be manifested in habitual action. A list of virtues is given where some of the virtues also feature in Galatians 5 in the fruits of Holy Spirit. These virtues include kindness, compassion, self-control, tolerance and loyalty. Aristotle also indicated that virtue can be defined as a mean by reference to two vices. In other words, the vices are the excess while the other one is a deficiency. This means that a virtue is moderate between deficiencies and excess. Moral virtues are important in that it brings about moral motivation. Moral virtues also resemble the Christ’s teachings in that some of the aspects Jesus was teaching are also considered virtuous such as love. Read More