Elements of Moral Philosophy - Essay Example

Elements of Moral Philosophy Utilitarianism The concept of utilitarianism is built on the idea that the basis that every moralreasoning depend on the happiness or unhappiness of individuals (Rachels & Rachels, 2010). It is based on Benthams idea about utility and how we chose the best possible outcome from other that seems optimistic. He offers a clear course of action that eliminates confusion. Utilitarianism seeks to reach a point where the majority of the people are happy. Good results are those that yield overall happiness for the greatest percentage of the affected people. Furthermore, good results of actions reduce overall suffering. Thus, any action that creates benefit or happiness is useful action. These actions that yield maximum happiness have instrumental value, something essential for achieving a goal. The utilitarian primary goal is to maximize happiness. John Mill defined happiness as an existence exempt as far as possible from pain and highest possible enjoyment in both quality and quantity. In other words, if people want to embrace utilitarianism moral viewpoint, they would consider these principles to be morally binding. He claims that happiness is a foundation of morality since people desire to be happy. He also supports the claim, arguing that everything that human desires are to bring happiness. Mill argues that justice is based on utility since the rights are put in place for the human happiness. However, there is no agreement about the goals as people view happiness with considerable disagreement. People from varying cultural background may disagree more profoundly with these views. Utilitarian do not put more emphasis on the importance of motive when analyzing the moral of the action. Motives may be acceptable for an action if they deliver a positive outcome and overall best consequences. For instance, an individual may rescue people from an accident to get recognition; however, this does not take away from the good outcome. However, this theory has been criticized by arguing that happiness is not the only important thing. Critics argue that the theory does not provide enough protection for individual rights, as well as not everything cannot be measured by the same standards. Other issues have not been considered such as rights, justice, depression personal relationships, and neglecting our normal lives. For example, some actions create the best possible outcomes in terms of happiness. However, that does not necessarily work according to justice. We cannot actively pursue happiness alone as it is an insensitive view of humanity. If companies seek pleasure or happiness alone, they may end up exploiting people or use illegal procedures to reach their happiness. Consequently, this may ruin its reputation. Recently, Enron was in such situation, engaging in immoral activity led to the firm collapse and some of its top managers were jailed. When using Benthams theory, it’s hard to predict how the decision will affect people in the future. Furthermore, the consequences cannot be foreseen and thus an action may not be taken to cater goodness for all. If we can anticipate what will happen in future, how can you base it on what will happen. Rachael Ethical Viewpoint Rachels attempts to define morality by giving examples of physically challenged children. Baby Theresa was born without auxiliary brain functions. Such pregnancies defect requires termination, but her parents decided to have Baby Theresa in the hope that her organs can be used to assist other children (Rachels & Rachels, 2010). Advocates for this argued that her organs would not help her, meaning that life is worthless if we do not have the ability to interact with others. On the other hand, opposes argued that it is wrong to use human life to fulfill the need of another life. Moral judgment must, therefore, be supported by sound reasoning and morality impartial consideration of the parties involved. The minimum conception of morality which argues that it is the effort to guide individuals conduct by reason while giving equal attention to the interest of both parties affected by what one does. In the last chapter, Rachels tries to describe what satisfactory theory would be where human beings are considered to be one species among others rather than the center of the universe. The author suggests the option to go back to the ethics and virtues that were used by the philosophers in the ancient times. The author suggests that morality is an act of acting on reason, treating others the way they deserve, when making a decision we should take other important motives into account. Rachels also suggests that we should act from the combination of various strategies that promote the welfare of the people, expand the moral community space, and time, and take fairness and justice into account. Comparison and Contrast of Moral Viewpoints Ethical subjectivism state we all have opinions about moral issues, but that does not make them right since they are based on feelings (Rachels & Rachels, 2010). This raises the question of whether there are moral facts or not and Rachels noted that they only exist when there are facts to back them. People should make decisions about ethical issues that are more significant than feelings; they should be proved and supported by facts rather than our feelings and opinions. This concurs with his argument on moral judgment must be supported by sound reasoning and consideration of the parties involved. The case about Baby Teresa, it would be wrong to use someone to fulfill another need of another. Rachels also discusses the aspect of morality and religion, where he questions gleaning moral information solely from religion. According to the Divine Command theory, ethical decisions should be based on Gods law. The author suggests that examining morality based on religion; numerous ways obstruct reasoning. Moral issues should not be based upon religion teachings alone. Rachael suggests that theory of Natural Law offers a reasonable choice on moral decision-making. It takes into account the aspect of human nature. According to Rachel’s psychological egoism is impossible since it requires us to be unselfish, and thus each of our actions is actually for the better of our selfish interests. Rachel argues that it is rare people do anything without some self-interest, for example, some random act of kindness makes us feel better. He suggests that ego is never absent because even when we thin the act was unselfish, it must be considered. This contradicts the moral decision that it should be supported by facts or reasons. Ethical Egoism, on the other hand, claims that the only role is to do only what benefits us most. The concept of ethical egoism is contrary to what we believe. Many people argue that the idea is insensitive, but Rachaels point out it would be difficult to claim that the idea was based on rational or logical reasoning (Rachels & Rachels, 2010). This concept goes against the notion that helping others will be beneficial to us. It would be difficult to understand others needs, the way we understand our own. It is clear many roles that we consider to be moral are serving our selfish interest. This was previously highlighted in psychological egoism that each of our actions are actually for our self-interests. Rachels also discussed a different approach by utilitarianism, which states that we chose the best possible outcome that can result in maximization of the total happiness. The author did not consider the issues that were raised by ethical and psychological egoism. Even though the best moral action is to promote happiness for most people affected, one cannot ignore altruism versus self-interested behavior. It leads to the discussion of euthanasia that state we should allow suffering patients to die willingly to increase happiness for both family and them. Also, animals should be treated equally as humans. This concept also brings ideas of basing our morality on religious doctrine. Utilitarianism does not take into account self-interest potential. Its primary aim is good for all rather than an individual. Moral Viewpoint Philosophers have argued for the definition of moral viewpoint. Kurt explains that a moral viewpoint is an individual ability to universalize particular principles by considering the good for everyone is a similar situation. On the other hand, Hume believes that a moral viewpoint is based on sympathy. I think people should seek resolve disputes rationally by assuming both parties are neither more nor less important, and also the claims are considered to those of others in a fair way. It should involve the use of reasons or prove rather than feelings or preferences in the sense that moral decision applies to everyone in a similar situation irrespective of arbitrary considerations. A moral viewpoint should be a point where everyone can use to approach a problem from a perspective of the problem being morally correct or wrong. It should be characterized by a willingness to seek the facts in that the best action is the one backed with prove and commitment to impartiality irrespective of involved parties. One of the greatest attribute to this moral viewpoint is consistency. It requires people to be consistent with morality; we should follow principles if we would want everyone to do the same. Furthermore, it accepts consideration on whether to do soothing or not, however, you should accept the same reasons in other peoples situations. If moral rights are binding are valid they are binding on everyone at all times (Rachels & Rachels, 2010). Thus, the moral viewpoint is rational. However, this moral perspective can result in conflicts of rules. More importantly, when we are faced with a situation that require us to choose between moral principles. It also underestimates the need to take the outcomes into consideration when taking action. Reference Rachels, J & Rachels, S. (2010). The Elements of Moral Philosophy, Seventh Edition. The McGraw-Hill Companies, ISBN 978-0-07-803824-2. Read More