Ethical Theories: Liberalism and Libertarianism - Essay Example

?Ethics Utilitarianism was developed in 1789 by Jeremy Bentham with close associate Joseph Priestly; although it was later more carefully defined by John Stuart Mill. He decided that pain and pleasure were the only values intrinsic to mankind, therefore his philosophy developed along the lines of utility. It’s a quantitative and reductionist view of life as related to the greatest happiness for the largest number of people. It came to be associated with the liberty versus harm principle where as a person’s happiness is subject to whatever doesn’t cause harm for most people. This philosophy formed a basis for Liberalism and Libertarianism. The opponents say that it’s impossible to determine true parameters for measuring and comparing human happiness among people. While the pleasure of the sadist is viewed as having equal value to the pleasure of the altruist, the suffering of others would offset any derived pleasure for the sadist; it’s superficial, temporary. It takes awhile to evaluate the pros and cons of an action so that while we can’t know the total picture immediately, enough of the consequences of an action are usually known so as to avoid the most pain for most people. This approach only views the end results of actions as opposed to the original intentions. Kantianism was developed by Immanuel Kant in the 1700s. He is considered one of the forefathers of philosophy of the mind and epistemology. His predecessors, Gottfried Leibniz and Christian Wolf, along with Rene Descartes were attempting to find a rational way to approach beliefs about God without all the emotionalism of religion. He asserts that people act on their beliefs which are deeply held underlying principles; human beings are basically rational and the world is full of uncontrollable events, therefore rationality is the ultimate good. Rational beliefs should be universalized. It is the original intention of an action that determines its value, as acts themselves should be performed for their inherent value, not for the consequences they produce. His work is divided into four categories: 1) pure theoretical reason, 2) practical reason and ethics, 3) aesthetics and teology, and 4) rational religion. The problem with Kantianism is that there is no single rule that is applicable in every situation to characterize an action; it doesn’t have a way to resolve conflicts between rules. There is no room for aberrancy with regards to moral laws. It didn’t take into consideration the feelings of the human, only the rational thought processes. Social Contract Theory has been around since Socrates, although Thomas Hobbs is considered the modern founder in the middle 1600s. His proponents, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, later expounded on his theory to formulate much broader politically applicable social theories. In essence, it is the belief that individuals in their natural state come together to form a mutually consensual agreement where they agree to limit themselves and their behavior to that which is beneficial to the governance of all. We are self-interested beings, which in our natural state of being, are governed only by our own sense of personal power and conscience. It formed a theory of why we need government in order to remain civilized, the people give up some rights in order to benefit from a greater social order. Opponents assert that while it outlines our rights and obligations as people in the whole community of mankind, it doesn’t allow for explaining the full human experience in terms of psychology and motivation. It depends on the greater consensus of the group to determine how the whole group will be treated without respect for individuality or human considerations. If the majority of the group is consensual with a particular limit of some sort, then the whole society is bound by that same limit. It violates contractual theory in that contracts require all interested parties to agree to the contract, not just the majority. Divine Command Theory has been around since the beginning of religion. It is the belief that anything, regardless of its effects on mankind, is only permissible if God sanctions it. That God is the beginning and end of all morality and that we should obey God’s commands without question. Things are morally right and morally wrong dependent upon God’s edicts about the act. The history goes back to the Euthyphro dilemma in which Plato ponders the theory of moral acts being good because they are morally good, or because they are God willed? There are several problems with this theory. The first and foremost one is that it presupposes that there is such a thing as God, a universal, all knowing, decision making being. Secondly, it suggests that all human behavior is subject to the arbitrariness of this universal being, God. These commands are neither based on information nor morality. Most of the empty concepts that surround this universal being, such as goodness, and justification for inexplicable events that are attributed to God, are to be accepted without question as authentic. Therefore when horrible things happen, God acted out of goodness, not out of morality. That an act is morally commanded also makes it morally good, therefore if this command was to do something horrorific such as killing, then killing would be a universally applicable morally good thing to do. Natural Law Theory is the use of reasoning to analyze human nature and the set of universal laws which determine human behavior. Aristotle was given credit for this theory, however many after him have expounded on it, including early Stoics and religious philosophers. It postulates that moral propositions can be either true or false, and, that the core beliefs of natural law are derived from human nature and the nature of creation. That it proceeds through time, government and culture as a set of universal standards inherent in everyone, that we can know and apply to a system of just government. It provides us with a naturally occuring basis for jurisprudence in the legal system. Opponents of Natural Law Theory demand that natural law be defined in some way other than through the nature of creation and human nature. Therefore, if human beings already have inherent naturally moral qualities, why would we have to have external laws promulgating behavior. Natural Law can provide us with a set of standards based on what is reasonable given the inherent human condition; however, it cannot oblige us to act within these constraints, therefore jurisprudence is required. Theologically, Natural Law removes God from the equation in that once mankind had been created, that role of being involved in the affairs of decision making and direction of human behavior ended. Virtue Theory rests on the presuposition of the character of a person determines goodness or badness. One is more the totality of character as opposed to the sum total of deeds. In the determination of one’s goodness or badness, the character is examined. This theory dates back to early Greek philosophy. David Hume and, more recently, G.E.M. Anscombe have incorporated this theory into their work. There are two traditions associated with Virtue Theory, that of describing four cardinal virtues – temperance, justice fortitude, and wisdom, and that of comparing and contrasting the individual as they really are versus how they should be, according to moral ethics. This foundation provides a guideline for dealing with mankind against his untamed nature. Virtue Theory is more concerned with character traits as providing for human growth and development as opposed to just delineating human duties. Most of the Eastern religons follow this theory. The real issue with this theory is that every culture has its own set of virtues and universality is nearly impossible. Another problem is that it doesn’t distinguish which actions are virtuous and which ones aren’t; this area is largely subjective. They postulate that there is no way to create laws which govern virtues; laws must be based on moral principles. The fact that what is not considered virtuous, is therefore considered un-virtuous, doesn’t always hold true. Bibliography All About Philosophy. Ethical Relativism. AllAboutPhilosophy.org. 2002. Web March 30, 2011. http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/ethical-relativism-faq.htm Austin, Michael W. Divine Command Theory. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. August 21, 2006. Web. March 30, 2011. http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/ Friend, Celeste. Social Contract Theory. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. October 15, 2004. Web. March 30, 2011. http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/ Himmer, Kenneth E. Natural Law Theory. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. May 3, 2005. Web. March 30, 2011. http://www.iep.utm.edu/natlaw/ McCormick, Matt. Immanuel Kant: Metaphysics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. June 30, 2005. Web. March 30, 2011. http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/ Moral Philosophy.Info. Virtue Ethics. MoralPhilosophy.Info. 7/25/05 Web. March30, 2011. http://www.moralphilosophy.info/virtueethics.html The Basics of Philosophy. Utilitarianism. TheBasicsofPhilosophy. Nd. Web. March 30, 2011. http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_utilitarianism.html Read More