ETHICS

ethos - custom, habit,

RELATIVISM
Any view that maintains

character or disposition system of moral standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues

that the truth or falsity of statements of a certain class depends on the person making the statement or upon his circumstances or society

 Philosophical view that what is right or wrong and

good or bad is not absolute but variable and relative, depending on the person, circumstances, or social situation. the prescriptive view that (1) different groups of people ought to have different ethical standards for evaluating acts as right or wrong, (2) these different beliefs are true in their respective societies, and (3) these different beliefs are not instances of a basic moral principle

1. The relativist confuses cultural (or sociological) relativism with ethical relativism *cultural relativism is a descriptive view *ethical relativism is a prescriptive view. (E.g., cultural relativism describes the way people actually behave, and ethical relativism prescribes the way people ought to behave. 2. The ethical relativist often argues as follows: An absolute ethical standard has never been proved beyond doubt in the history of thought.Thus, an absolute ethical standard does not exist.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6.

Different societies have different moral codes No objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than the other The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many There is no "universal truth" in ethics; that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all peoples at all times. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society. It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures

Mary Midgley points out the necessity of moral judgment:

The power of moral judgment is not a luxury, not a perverse indulgence of the self-righteous. When we judge something to be good or bad, better or worse than something else, we are taking it as an example to aim at or avoid. Without opinions of this sort, we would have no framework of comparison for our own policy, no chance of profiting by other peoples insights or mistakes. In this vacuum, we could form no judgments on our own actions. To accept relativism is to accept a kind of paralysis in our ability to make ethical judgments. Relativism can lead to ethical paralysis

If we accept relativism, then we seem paralyzed with regard to our obligations to others. If we dont think we can justifiably make judgments about practices and beliefs we find objectionable, then we have no impetus to work to change those practices and beliefs. If all ethical standards are equal, there are no grounds to criticize practices which we find ethically wrongafter all, thats just their way of doing things and we have ours.
But, if we reject relativism, that is, if we think that we can make ethical judgments about the practices of other culturesand vice versathen it seems that we do have some obligations towards others.

 Mankind has been placed by nature under the

governance of 2 sovereign masters pain and pleasure

That which giver happiness or pleasure to most people is good That which bestows pain or misery is evil Happiness can be computed according to him by felicific calculus or hedonic calculus

 Criticized his teacher ,as according to him

utilitarianism was refined Higher pleasures are more valued by competent judges than the lower pleasures it is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others

 The Utilitarian were social reformers

They supported suffrage for women and those without property, and the abolition of slavery. Utilitarian argued that criminals ought to be reformed and not merely punished(although Mill did support capital punishment as a deterrent).Bentham spoke out against cruelty to animals. Mill was a strong supporter of meritocracy .
Its main principle is that one must act so as to promote the

greatest happiness or pleasure to the greatest number of persons. Thus an act is good if contributes to the overall utility.

The Greatest Happiness Principle

Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness Happiness Unhappiness = = pleasure, and the absence of pain pain, and the absence of pleasure

Happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value

pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends...all desirable things are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.

 WHEN THE STATE IS ENTITLED TO AUTHORITY?

UTILITARIAN- State is entitled if and only if it promotes more happiness for the greatest number Thomas Hobbes: Might argue the state needs a strong central government and a strict implementation of laws Jeremy Bentham: Might disagree he believes that it will be best served by minimum governance and limited state authority

ACT UTILITARIANISM
Do those acts which

RULE UTILITARIANISM
You need to follow the

produce the greatest good for the greatest number Thus rules or laws may be deserted in those instances where following them would not produce greatest good for the greatest number.

rule appropriate to that kind of situation you are in. And adopt the same which will produce the greatest good for the greatest number

 The connection between these two has as long

tradition Bentham thought that the principle of utility can guide the lawmakers as the purpose of law and moral are one,it is to PROMOTE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE Mills The sole end for which mankind are warranted, in prying with the liberty of action of others is self protection. It can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will , is to prevent harm to others.

 1987 Constitution

General welfare is defined as mandate where the government by virtue of its police powers may adopt ordinances to secure the peace , safety, health, morals and the best and highest interests of the entity
Revised Administrative Code

General welfare clause as that where municipal council shall enact such ordinances and make such regulations, not repugnant to law

Actions are Right when they maximize the Good Whether an action is morally right or wrong depends entirely on its consequences. An action is right if it brings about the best outcome of the choices available. otherwise it is wrong. Ex: Suppoe A promise to pay his debt of P10k to B next wk.It is alright if by then he will not pay if he will use the money in a much important situation ,for instance spend it to homeless people or relative who is in the hospital (it generates better consequence)

The only important thing is the amount of happiness than unhappiness Ex: A man took photos of a semi nude sleeping woman and the man kept the photos for his personal enjoyment and never shared it with anyone.For utilitarian ,this ia alright.No one was hurt,the woman did not know of the photos and man was made more happy.

Each ones happiness and welfare are equally important. Ex: Saving a scientist who is working on a possible cure for AIDS over your loved ones who are both confined in a burning hospital