Please Read every model carefully and write two pages for every model, and separate every model do not mix them.
1- RELIGIOUS ABSOLUTISM
The ethical model of Religious Absolutism declined in the late 19th century as an empirical culture saw science as the new religion. Philosophers and scientist believed that in the near future new discoveries would show that the mysteries of the universe could be explained rationally and the need for a “God” would become unnecessary. In the late 20th and 21st century these great scientific understandings happened, however the conclusions were much different than expected. Complex genetic codes, the Big Bang Theory and other discoveries revealed a much more complex and unexplainable picture of ordered existence. To many it was an order so infinitely complex and intricate that an ordered entity almost seemed a necessity. Therefore, the idea of religion as the source of ethical standards has grown in importance.
The ethical model we call Religious Absolutism is, for us, based on a view of religion that emerged out of the Age of Reason. It might very well fit under the term, Revealed Religion. The idea is that if a rational person placed the great religions of the world before him/her and back far enough away so that cultural and societal add ons ( i.e do not eat meat on Fridays, wear a head covering, etc.) fell away, one would see that all religions essentially share the same belief as regards right and wrong. Because there is general agreement, religion becomes the best candidate for the creation of a firm foundation for a societal moral code. For the Western Mind, is also satisfies Socrates need for the “third act” which he felt was an absolute necessity for any society’s establishment of a moral code that would be understood and accepted by the people as a whole.
The problem of Religious Absolutism revolves around an issue, however, of great significance. Is it good because God says it is good or is it good because a loving, merciful God would espouse a morality that is reflective of an omnipotent loving God? For example, in the Old Testament God calls for the destruction of cities and people. Because God called for this act, does it make the destruction of people who are opposed to a religion a “good”. Or, as seen, for example, in the New Testament, is Christ’s message and sacrifice a statement of what is “good”? For this course, we assume the latter.
Quick revise
Absolutism
Absolutism is making normative ethical decisions based on objective rules. It maintains that some things are always right and some things are always wrong. They are fixed for all time, places and people.
A common example of Absolutism is Kantian Ethics.
Advantages of Absolutism
It allows moral rules to be evaluated critically.
It is fair as people are treated the same as the rules are the same for everyone.
If a moral rule is right, then there would be no need to have different rules for different people because the absolute rules are universal.
Disadvantages of Absolutism
Sometimes it is not appropriate to treat people the same due to circumstances that arise due to situations.
Life is not simply ‘black and white’ and as this is the case, it is simply not right to make everyone live by the same rules.
2- UTILITARIANISM
The word “utility’ can be translated as satisfaction, pleasure and so on. In ethics it refers to a system of living that seeks to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Possibly the first concrete expression of this idea is the philosophy of Epicurus in the Fourth Century B.C. The philosophy was spawned by the evolution of a new type of city, the Cosmopolis. Unlike the Polis of Greece, a small city-state ( i.e. Sparta, Athens, Thebes, etc. ) where all citizens could extensively participate in all aspects of society, the Cosmopolis was a huge city made up of different cultures, languages and customs. In the Cosmoplois the individual was overwhelmed and became insignificant. This led to a crisis in the Greek mind as to how to survive in a very different societal structure. What emerged from this crisis was new philosophies such as Sketicism, Cynicism, Stoicism and Epircurianism. As Epicurus believed that after death there was nothing, it appeared to him that one’s time in this existence should reflect an effort to maximize pleasure.
During the time of the Age of Reason and beyond, as religious beliefs began to diminish this idea of pleasure maximization began to emerge through philosopers, most notable Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832 ) and John Stuart Mills ( 1806-1873 ). Bentham, who was both practical and mathematical, reasoned that everyone acts out of their self-interest. What is in everyone’s self-interest is getting pleasure and avoiding pain. Like the mathematician he was, he saw that happiness meant achieving the greatest level of pleasure and avoiding pain for the greatest number of people. An action, therefore, can only be judged by its effects The act’s right or wrong is directly related to its psychological effects on people. In many ways, Utilitarianism is like a balance sheet.
Like all ethical models there is a problem. In a work by Jeremy Stangroom and James Garvey, a key weakness of the model is pointed out:
” Suppose a string of heiness crimes is committed in a community. We are holding someone from out of town for a minor traffic offence, someone with no known connection to these heiness crimes. Might it relieve the anxiety of the community, and improve the overall balance of pleasure over pain considerably, if we make this person a scapegoat? We could plant some evidence on him, charge him with the crimes, publicly punish him, maybe even execute him…maybe this would deter the real criminal. It would certainly reduce anxiety. Is this sort of thing not only permitted by the greatest Happiness Principle, but required by it?”
Mills would expand on Bentham on the idea of society and Utilitarianism. In his work, ON LIBERTY, Mills said that what is best for us is our drive for self-improvement and our freedom to pursue our own routes to happiness. Therefore, it is important that government not interfere with our pursuits. So what should be the purpose of government? Mills said “…the only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
THE ETHICS OF PRINCETON PROFESSOR PETER SINGER
As one should understand, this view can be difficult to work out in different situations. One of the most controversial uses of this ethical philosophy is that of modern philosopher Peter Singer. He took the concept that our judgement of whether an action is right or wrong should purely based on the extent to which is promotes pleasure or prevents pain into the realm of animal rights and abortion. He argued that the concept of the “sanctity of life” was “…outmoded, scientifically unjustifiable, and irrelevant to contemporary bioethical debate.”
Based on his approach he reasoned that human life has no more value than any other lifeform. He felt that,”…some nonhuman species display many of those attributes and capabilities generally taken to denote personhood but that some humans lack them.” In this vein of thought he said that ” killing a new boen baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.” From this standpoint to argued that killing a baby with hereditary disabilities is justifiable as the child would have no chance of achieving personhood and would only take away resources that could go to other children with disabilities.
Questions for essay
In what ways would you agree and/or disagree with Singer’s ethical ideas? Do you believe that his ideas could pose a danger to a society that accepted his beliefs? What ramifications would occur in a society that accepted his views?
3- SITUATIONAL RELATIVISM
Ethical models are based on a definition of “truth” or more distinctly, whether truth can or cannot be known. This is an issue that becomes relevant to those who do not believe ordered existence is the result of a higher being. It is their belief that everything is the result of chance. There is no higher force behind existence. What we see is all that exists and that ius the result of chance. As such one cannot point to some force that validates a moral code. Usually the belief ios that as man became a social being, he/she began to accept that certain forms of conduct were more rational and sensible than others. Out of this reason emerges a lose ethical model that contains general ideas regarding murder, theft, etc. However the evil of an act must be judged within the paradigm of the outsomes surrounding it. It is wrong to murder another human being or is it. If I believe that the act of murder was necessary as I believe the other person was a threat to me? It all depends on the situation. Therefore, we have the ethical model called Situational Relativism.
Cultural Relativism
says that different countries – or even areas within a country – have different values, for example, Muslims expect women to cover up (at least some of) their bodies.
It affirms the idea ‘when in Rome do as the Romans do’.
It allows there to be variety in different cultures.
However, as there are no overriding standard to compare cultures to, noone can say that one culture is better than another because of what they believe – this could be either an advantage or a disadvantage.
Moral truths are no more than subjective feelings about behaviour which can therefore never achieve the status of fact as they are the result of ways of life and opinions which vary from culture to culture or person to person depending on circumstances.
Historical Relativism
This says that what was right one hundred years ago may not be right in the present day because times and society have moved on.
100 years ago, women did not have the vote but due to changing opinions in society they now do and hold principal positions in parliament, etc.
Society also accepts the need to change sets of rules which used to be sufficient in previous times.
Advantages of Relativism
It allows for the diversity that is present in the world.
It understands that life is not black and white.
Cultures may believe that their practices are more justifiable than other cultural practices, but by using a relativist approach, this will allow for acceptance between different peoples.
Disadvantages of Relativism
Just because there are different moral views, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are all of equal value. For example, the Nazis believed that they were right to kill millions of Jews, homosexuals and disabled people: surely it would be wrong to say that this had the same worth as other moral views. Cultural Relativists would not be able to criticise the Nazis as they believe that all cultures have views of equal worth.
Cultural Relativism also ultimately reduces the meaning of what is ‘good’ to ‘what is socially acceptable’. For example if a culture allows wife-beating, then cultural relativism would also have to say that wife-beating is morally acceptable.
It may be more difficult to decide when the rules need changing in different circumstances.
Absolutism versus Relativism
Ethical Absolutists can condemn practices such as the Nazi persecution of the Jews because Absolutist views give definite guidelines as to what is right and wrong.
Relativism can take into account the reasons why something happens. Absolutists would have to condemn a mother who steals food for her starving children because in their eyes all stealing is wrong, whereas Relativists can say stealing is wrong usually but as the mother needed to feed her children, what she did was right and should therefore not be condemned.
Absolutists can appear to be intolerant to views of others, for example, if they are against cruelty of animals, they would be against the Islamic practice of sacrificing lambs, but Relativists would be able to see the religious significance and the importance of that practice to the Islamic community and will therefore not condemn it.
4- LEGALISM
Legalism was essentially an ethical approach employed in early China. It was based on the concept that any ethical model would work. The key was the force and fear behind the system. This led to the evolution of moral technocrats. In an atheistic society it is a method by which a strict moral code can be maintained. Those in control decide what is right and wrong and then utilize extensive policing to enforce the rules. Usually it will include indoctrination of the young and “reeducation” of the older population. Mao in China, the government of north Korea and Stalin in the Soviet Union are probably the best examples of this form of ethics. This was also the basis for George Orwell’s class, 1984.
5- RATIONAL ABSOLUTISM
This is a belief system that is based on a system of absolutes derived from our reason. Immanuel Kant referred to them as the Categorical Imperative. The idea is that through the long process of socialization, mankind comes to understand that there are ideals which are conducive to an orderly and peaceful society. We see these ends as ideals that transcend individual wants and desires. We recognize that it is our duty to strive for them even when they conflict with our personal desires. For example, it is wrong to steal. In this way of thinking, let us assume my family is starving and I trespass into a farmers field to steal some corn so my family will survive. Even though my reasons are moral in my mind, the Categorical Imperative is that stealing is wrong and therefore I am wrong regardless of my intent. Another example occurs if I am controlling a drone at a secret site in the United States and see a location when the ISIS leadership is meeting. If I kill them, the rapes, murder and torture ISIS is inflicting on the population will be greatly diminished so I bomb their location. My mission is successful and many lives are spared ISIS brutality. But Kant would say the Categorical Imperative states that any murder is wrong so my act is unethical.
