Ethical Systems Analysis - Essay Example

? Ethical Systems number: PHI208 Megan McLaughlin submitted: 6/27/13 ETHICAL SYSTEMS Introduction In order to explain morality and ethics, about five or more systems of ethics have been developed. Ethical relativism is one such ethical system, which contends that there are no universally valid principles (Wundt, 2010). With regards to this particular theory, every principle is valid according to specific cultural practices and beliefs. Another theory of ethics is the theory of divine command. This theory makes the argument that God alone is the one who makes decisions on moral standards since he knows everything. A third system of ethics is the deontological theory that lays emphasis on self-rule, acts of kindness, and universal justice. The fourth ethical theory is the virtue ethics. This theory contends that morals exist internally, laying more emphasis on the production of individuals who act ethically because they are naturally good people. Utilitarianism is the fifth widely accepted system of ethics. According to this theory, utilitarianism as a theory of ethics contends that actions need to be considered as wrong or right with regards to the consequences that the actions have. The theory makes an argument that good actions are those that give great happiness to as many individuals as possible (Wundt, 2010). Despite the fact that utilitarianism as an ethical theory has come in for some criticism, especially from the philosophical side, the theory is the most convincing of all the other mentioned ethical systems. Utilitarian Ethical System Utilitarianism as an ethical theory can be dated as far back as the 17th century. The theory is attributed to Thomas Hobbes, who was an ancient student of philosophy before it was reviewed Bentham in the 18th century and Stuart Mill reviewed it later (Ekland-Olson & Dirks, 2011). Stuart mill is regarded as the utilitarian theory’s father with research showing that, following his review of the theory, the theory became part of modern thought. Many people view the theory as a viable alternative to the more accepted Christianity. The reason that it is the most convincing of all the other ethical theories is because it tends to make a judgment on an act as either wrong or right depending on the act’s outcome (Ekland-Olson & Dirks, 2011). The implication of this is that, the utilitarian theory enables people to consider what consequence the act has before they elect to pursue a policy or action over other options that are available to them. When an individual considers the consequences of their individual actions, the theory allows them to take other persons’ interests into account, rather than just their own personal interests. This is highly convincing when considered as an ethical system. Ethics involves doing what is right with regards to the interest of other individuals instead of doing it to suit one’s own interests. Thus, it is clear that the utilitarian ethical system is focused on the creation of a happier existence for as many persons in the society as possible (Ekland-Olson & Dirks, 2011). This factor makes the theory more convincing than others do. Utilitarianism is also made more convincing as a system of ethics by yet another factor that is its practicability and rationality. The utilitarianism ethics have their basis on a balanced calculation on how many persons can have their happiness and satisfaction maximized by the actions taken and their consequences (Smart, 2011). This is simple and clear, and through the application of utilitarianism as a fundamental standard for the judgment of what is wrong and what is right, it avoids the contamination of the moral of morality with perceptions that are irrational, feelings, as well as prejudices. The most essential factor that conveys the highly convincing status to this particular system of ethics is the fact that there is practicality in the rational computation principle (Smart, 2011). As an ethical system, the utilitarian theory gives results that are compatible with common sense and falls in line with it, which ensures that it is a theory that is very credible. Because the utilitarian theory is focused on the minimization of pain and suffering, as well as the maximization of satisfaction and happiness, for as many persons as it possibly can, one can conclude that the major aspiration of the theory is to do good acts to as many people in society as possible (Smart, 2011). This ethical system, through a common sense point of view, is a system that emphasizes on the fact that benefitting society is the most appealing and, thus, the most convincing. It is vital to take note of the fact that the utilitarian ethical system does not need one to believe or accept any religious beliefs or cultural practices in the past to convince people what morality, and especially ethics, is about. Comparing it to a theory like that of divine command where one has to believe and accept that God knows everything and, therefore, is the one who sets all standards of morality, this does not apply to utilitarianism (Smart, 2011). The ethical and moral discussions that are presented by the utilitarian system of ethics are convincing in all cultures and religious beliefs. The ethical system of utilitarianism also acts to ensure democracy. For example, with regards to the health care system, care is given to as many persons as possible so as to ensure that their pain and suffering is minimized and to maximize their comfort and happiness (Schuyler, 2012). What this means is that, since health care needs to be given to a larger population in society, it will have to be improved and bettered to get to those people who are marginalized in the society. Improvement of health care causes an increase in the health and happiness of the society, which means that health care is able to achieve democracy. As a theory of ethics, utilitarianism is, thus, a convincing system because, not only does it account for the welfare of a large part of the society’s population, but it also makes sure that there is democracy in practice so as to achieve a population that is happier (Schuyler, 2012). This is also additional evidence on how convincing the utilitarian ethical theory is. The utilitarian ethical theory is also not a complex theory since it is able to relate to actions that, in everyday life, are practical. This theory contends that giving to persons or being involved in charity, especially to those who are less fortunate, promotes the person’s happiness, which can only be judged as a good act (Schuyler, 2012). However, on the other hand, an act such as cruelty inflicts suffering and pain on persons and is, therefore, judged to be a bad thing. These acts are experienced in everyday life, and the majority of society agrees on them as either universally bad or good. This shows how the ethical theory of utilitarianism is highly convincing, especially because it can be related to real life experiences in order to show how practical they are (Schuyler, 2012). However, despite the highly convincing nature of utilitarianism as an ethical theory, it has been the subject of sustained criticism from a significant number of modern philosophers. It is not in doubt that the utilitarian ethical system utilizes consequentialism in order to make a judgment on the wrong or right nature of an action (Smart & Williams, 2009). However, its credibility is negatively affected by the fact that it is not entirely possible to judge every action’s consequences. In addition, another factor that makes the credibility of this system suffer is the fact that results are the main determinants of how moral or ethical an act is. Most philosophers have contended that good results can also result from someone acting with the wrong motives in mind. Thus, it is argued that utilitarian must not determine the ethical nature of actions only by looking at results. Bernd Williams, a modern philosopher, has argued that persons must look to keep their integrity that is an essential and vital principle of ethics even when what they do are the cause of undesirable consequences (Smart & Williams, 2009). The ethical system of utilitarianism is not considerate of the whole societies’ rights through its attempt to maximize the satisfaction and happiness of most of the people in the society and, therefore, its credibility suffers (Smart & Williams, 2009). This results from the fact that the majority always have the advantage, which occurs at the expense of those who are marginalized and in the minority. All systems of ethics must strive to make sure that they protect the rights of all the people in the society. The utilitarian ethical system also makes an argument for advocacy against injustice, which is a further dent on its credibility. A perfect example of this is the case where an innocent man is framed and accused of raping another person to appease a crowd baying for blood and on the verge of a riot. In addition, it can also be argued that no credible measure of pleasure against the pleasure of another person exists (Smart & Williams, 2009). Conclusion Enough evidence does exist to prove the fact that the utilitarian ethical system is a highly convincing one. This system makes it judgment based on whether one’s actions are bad or good by looking at the consequences of those actions. This system of ethics also ensures that persons judge their actions’ consequences as either wrong or right and, therefore, learn how to be involved in acts that lead to increased satisfaction and happiness to the most people as possible. It is also highly convincing because it allows people to be better in their lives through the placement of other people’s interests ahead of theirs. This ethical system’s credibility is also established by the fact that it seeks to advocate for equality and democracy in society. In spite of this, the ethical system has been the subject of criticism as it is argued that it is not possible to make a judgment on every action’s consequences. There is also an argument that utilitarianism, in some cases, advocates for the commitment of injustices; this is not very ethical. However, even with these criticisms, clear and strong factors exist to make us believe that this ethical system is the most credible of them all. References Ekland-Olson, Sheldon. & Dirks, Danielle. (2011). How Ethical Systems Change. London: Routledge. Schuyler, Aaron. (2012). Systems of Ethics. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing. Smart, John. & Williams, Bernard. (2009). Utilitarianism : for and against. Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press. Smart, John. (2011). An outline of a system of utilitarian ethics. Melbourne : Melbourne University Press. Wundt, Wilhelm. (2010). Ethical Systems. Charleston: BiblioBazaar. Read More