Sheikh Hasnat Jahan

Introduction to Philosophy
Professor Jules Salomone
May 3, 2017

Utilitarianism
Act-utilitarianism by definition is an action morally right if and only if it brings
the greatest happiness to the greatest number. When we refer to the greatest happiness
we are referring to the highest amount of happiness possible from that certain action and
the greatest number refers to the largest amount of people this will bring happiness to.
There are two specific examples that can relate to act-utilitarianism. The first example is
that hypothetically if a riot broke out in a small town and the town sheriff believes that
the only way he could end the riot would be by framing and executing an innocent person
for a crime. If the sheriffs plan did indeed succeed and it ended up saving more lives
than it cost. Similarly if a doctor thought that she could kill one patient in order to save
five others and it worked in her favor. The sheriff and the doctor would both be making
several people happy in the sheriffs case he would be making an entire town happy and
in the doctors case she would be making five patients and their families happy. However,
they may face consequences morally. The act-utilitarianism is a positive thing however it
may be good to a certain extent. As seen in both examples the doctor and sheriff both
made choices for two people who did not have a say. In that send was it morally right
to take away someones life without his or her permission? Was it morally right to
blame an innocent person for the crimes of someone else?
I personally dont feel as though utilitarianism was able to provide a convincing
response to the two dirty hand scenarios. Despite bringing in the rule-utilitarianism and
showing a logical way to justify the loss of one human for the sake of a bunch of peoples
happiness is still not too convincing. The person other than the one patient or the
scapegoat to know of their helplessness is the ones making the action. The doctor and
the sheriff are both aware of the situation and the consequences of their actions. Yes, the
doctor will be able to save five lives but she took away one life. Taking away even one
life goes against everything a doctor is taught. Similarly not fighting for justice or for the
truth goes against what a sheriff is taught to do. However, the both chose to do something
that goes against what they would normally do to make others happy. In the long run it
may affect both of them negatively. The doctor may feel regret for not upholding the
Hippocrates oath to save every patients life possible, taking away a life of a healthy
person is considered murder despite doing it for a good cause. This may cause the doctor
to feel bad for a long term after the incident. Similarly the sheriff may feel guilt for
punishing an innocent person and taking them away from their family just to end a riot.
He will both feel guilt for being unable to uphold the law and for letting the real criminal
get away without any consequences for his bad actions. Despite doing an action that
made many happy the doctor and sheriff will ultimately suffer the guilt of the wrong they
have committed.
Cultural Relativism:
In order to understand cultural relativism one must first understand the different
types of ethics. There is applied ethics, which seeks to offer a recommendation that is
derived from a standard or a norm on specific issues that are practical. Theoretical
ethics comes next which is less on solving an issue rather it tries to create an account that
answers questions such as what is the cause of a certain action and the consequences of
those actions? whereas applied ethnics questions more applicable questions such as do
we have an obligation as humans to a certain situation or would it be allowed to offer a
service considered more intimate in exchange for some sort of financial assistance? And
finally there is meta-ethics which tries to answer more general questions regarding the
status of morality such as what does it mean when we say a certain action is right or
wrong and are these actions chosen based on things that exist in the world or is it just a
projection of what is on our minds onto the world outside of our minds? From these
views we are able to derive moral relativism, moral subjectivism, and finally cultural
relativism. Cultural relativism is the belief that some of your moral beliefs are true only
because your culture believes them to be true. Despite many support of cultural relativism
there are also many criticisms such as the argument that if cultural relativism were true,
there wouldnt be any moral basis for criticisms of other cultures.
I disagree with the criticisms faced by cultural criticism. I truly do believe that cultural
relativism exists. Cultural relativism does not say that it is true thats ones moral beliefs
are true rather it says that it is a belief held by one that they belief their views are true
only because it is in their culture to belief it is true. In every culture there is a set of moral
laws that one must follow. A citizen of that culture would also believe that these laws are
the truth and therefore believe these specific beliefs and laws to be true because that is
what they are surrounded by. To say that cultural relativism does not exist is the same as
saying medicine does not exist only because it is not practiced at another part of the
world.