The Challenge of Cultural Relativism

Subjective moral theories are often utilized in personal philosophies due to their relative ease of practice having a lack of defined rules meant to impede every discussion of morality with a much deeper explanation than is necessary. However, a more relaxed moral theory means that certain individual ethical dilemmas may fit into this overarching viewpoint while it violates other more personal beliefs and values. Cultural relativism seems to be the perfect example of a subjective moral theory due to its extraordinary encircling of all global cultures under a level of expected acceptance regardless of any personal disputes with certain practices. Personally, I hold pretty true to the core of cultural relativism, my personal moral concoction of early Christian values, personal experiences, and morals passed on from cultural interactions and stories have instilled an important emphasis on tolerance for me. A relatively open and subjective moral principle to encompass all cultures under an initial acceptance is very attractive to someone like me, but it clearly has its issues and serious constraints, such as the necessity to accept groups and ideologies such as Nazis or long-developed yet nonsensical social constrictions which may force roles or limits on other people such as women as mentioned in the text. I agree (and imagine most people) oppose accepting these values as right even in their own cultural circles and this requires editing cultural relativism with more objective standards. Editing and reconstructing cultural relativism inevitably makes it more objective due to the fact that CR itself is so open-ended, most people like myself have read through this chapter realizing that we already have likely added exceptions to fix contradictions in this postulate already, such as opposition of genital mutilation or severe limitations on free speech despite their usage in many parts of the world. 

A “fix” I utilize in defending certain exceptions in CR is Karl Popper’s “tolerance paradox” which states that a tolerant society should never accept individuals that are intolerant as if they are given a place in a society that allows everyone, they could impede the rights and practices of individuals within it, ultimately risking the end of the tolerant society. It is a contradictory rule that originated from the horrors of WWII, and how the newly democratic Weimar Republic (Germany) accepted Nazism as a viable political option under their belief in tolerance, which extended to politics, and ended up losing everything about their country’s philosophy to them as a penalty. While the idea is confusing in concept, it makes sense in application and has roots in historical examples; including discussions today with topics such as the balance of free speech, immigration of Muslims and other religious groups and their occasional contrasting with western ideals, and the rise of political extremism. But this chapter makes it clear that more rules are necessary depending on an individual’s personal philosophy on “right and wrong”; they require a more objective view in order to maintain a deeper belief in what is morally righteous. Arguably, an objective view of the acceptability of a culture and its contents may include ensuring that a person is not required to consent to practices or beliefs within a culture, and that harm, injury or death should never occur unless necessary and that individuals within a culture must also be able to respect other cultures in order to receive it as well. The unfortunate side effect of these limits to CR is that they inspire even deeper discussion and invite possible disagreements in meaning. What jurisdicts a necessity in harming or killing someone, should a person always be able to exempt themselves from any cultural expectation (even more generally accepted views such as opposition to murder or importance of truth), and is respect a transactional privilege rather than a right? But objective views are much more defined and the discourse they inspire seems nothing short of vital, especially as we move closer to a more global and interconnected world.

Subjectivism in Ethics

Reading this, I was surprised to see how many different perspectives have developed on the rather simple concept of ethical subjectivism. I had always just assumed that it was simply the rejection of having ethical opinions, that it was merely a middle ground taught to people to ensure that we have a grasp on how to be unbiased in debates and discussions. However, it has been in development as a philosophical rule for well into three centuries now and even has distinct schools of thought, some more or less convincing to me personally. In terms of the three versions mentioned in the second page of the chapter, Error Theory seems to be the most convincing theory (partially due to its more recent development). However, Error Theory also beats out philosophies such as Nihilism to me, I feel that Nihilism is an extraordinarily bleak and defeatist attitude about human nature and values, and to a greater extent, life in general as opposed to error theory which both implements the core value of opinions being based on morals rather than true facts, while also recognizing the reality of ethical thought, that people do have reason to believe things, even if it falls short saying that the reason is that we are simply “convinced” to always argue our positions. But the author does a great job explaining these theories; their beliefs, pros and cons and it is apparent that they are attempting to explain the newest view on subjectivism in ethics. Similarly to cultural relativism, nuance has been built into ethical subjectivism over time due to more discussion and greater thought being given to it. Like CR with its overencompassing belief that all cultural aspects deserve immediate and level respect evolving into a more complex and global set of recommendations governed by basic respect towards other people and their backgrounds; ethical subjectivism has moved from a simple and sweeping belief that all opinions given are just that, with no greater inherent meaning, now understanding that there is much more behind any given belief than emotion. In either the instance of cultural relativism or ethical subjectivism, the author seems to advocate that subjectivity and balance are necessary when approaching any ethical situation in order to fairly analyze various sides of the discussion, but ensures that this should not lead to middling attitudes about all opinions or beliefs. Instead, it should be understood that while openness to any opinion is the central focus of philosophy, there are reasons for people to promote their own view on moral topics. Judgments we issue have reasons behind them that are extrapolated from not just our emotional reaction or our individual backgrounds, but also from reason. If a reason is justifiable to society at large, then the belief has an impact on the topic and should be respected as such. All people should show a level of respect to anyone they come across, whether in an ethical debate, or generally anywhere else in life, we all share an intrinsic similarity that I cannot understand or explain, but the author seems to promote a deep and simple value in forming ethical beliefs, that as people our beliefs should be respected and other beliefs (even if opposing) should also be given respect in a similar vein. This central respect for others as you would yourself allows for full open-mindedness in deliberations, but also provides caveats for more objective rules and greater nuance that simply allow all opinions the same validity. As covered in this chapter, there are opposing views on homosexuality that exist both in the US as well as the rest of the world, but the understanding and respect that all people strive to possess for their own and wish to provide it towards one another no matter appearance or ideology seems to dictate that there would be more reason to let homosexuals simply be free to live their lives, free of legal or cultural dissolution due to the fact that, at the end of the day, they are human like anyone else and like us, they desire basic respect for their existence as people and because of that, they are not different in these core moral beliefs of reciprocating  respect to all others as well. This simple viewpoint allows for initial acceptance of both perspectives on the issue, while also providing a somewhat objective opinion to this rather large and impactful discussion due to its involvement of many actual people. In essence, from what I have been picking up,  others wish to be treated the same as we do, and as long as others also respect others as we would ourselves, then there is no true logical reason to defy them the right to respect.

Does Morality Depend on Religion

Religion seems to have a form of connection with morality, the question discussed here is whether it is the embodiment of a culture's moral principles, or rather a set of moral principles defined by a given culture, or is it truly linked at all to morality? This chapter was particularly intriguing for me as I have tackled these questions in the last few years myself, as have many people in our modern times. Heading into these pages, I had my personal perspective on how religions relate to morality. Religions are typically set up as a “school of thought” per se, that teaches a society (group of people) a set of preconceived moral values ranging from more universal “treat others well”, aspire to help others, etc. to more particular practices and philosophies such as acceptable manners, behaviors or thought processes. All in all, I think religions are set up as ways of educating people on morals that were decided upon by particular societies relating to laws and practices utilized at the time of their creation, while also accounting for generally accepted philosophical beliefs such as respecting and assisting others. I think that the author has not moved me from this belief, however, the commentary on religious and secular views on morality was fascinating and covered a lot of ground on various interesting perspectives such as, how religions tend to provide a greater meaning to human actions in our greater world or how many contradictions crop up in the idea of a “moral god”. It seems that the harder one works to nail down a solid understanding of religion and morality, the more critical issues appear. If God defines moral policy, then why did he happen to pick the basic guidelines that we as people promote rather than against them, is it due to his grace and understanding? Then that means that a defined good already existed and god is simply promoting better behavior and is not defining it. The comparison of the divine command and natural law theories also seems to show that setting up neat and tidy philosophies on how morality is inextricable from religion only allows for unanswered questions and contradictions to become ingrained into it, solidified by its original logic and centuries of traditional use. Objectivity is important to making decisions in ethics, but pure objectivity essentially never works in examining this question it seems unless one is willing to accept the more bleak or uncertain aspects of people and morality. Either that morality is simply a facade that humanity uses to perpetuate a society in a universe that gives no special provisions to us which I see as nihilistic and frankly, rather unacceptable in its dark simplicity or that morals are simply “things that are.” People make rules and laws and if people wish to follow certain acceptable guidelines, then they will subscribe to these principles and advocate them to others, there are few (if any) truly universal moral practices, rather, every culture or every person individually puts a different value on certain things (manners, beliefs, personality traits to demonstrate, etc.) and aspires to embody this overarching policy while also advocating for it. I personally find the latter to be a more human way of viewing the issue of what morality is and where it originates, but like natural law or divine command, it leaves plenty to be desired and of course, lacks a truly definable origin story which leaves room for any moral belief to be “acceptable” in a given society, which is uncomfortable to imagine, at the very least. However, I have a feeling that there is no actually objective answer to this question and it can only really be answered by one’s acceptance of our vague and hazy, yet complex and thoughtful human nature.

Ethical Egoism

I have personally had a bit of experience with the philosophy of egoism and its somehow even more narcissistic form, objectivism, before. I have never regarded this theory with much respect, even with the small bit of information I had on it, but I never really figured it was worth deep diving into it any further than just knowing what it is, and our author’s explanation of its theories and ethical composition honestly confirm the worst to me. I have long resonated more with altruism than with egoism due to my background and I would feel quite confident stating that essentially everyone here in this class is the same in that thought, it is seldom that one would promote complete self-centeredness in a world much in need of collaboration and general assistance from others, and I find it quite disturbing that some may choose to turn a blind eye to those in dire straits based on the idea that an individual's decisions and issues are entirely dependant on them. However, I worked to push my bias aside while reading this chapter to better grasp the reasoning behind egoism and its variants. One of the more interesting points made is the defense of ethical egoism by the concept of psychological egoism or the idea that we as humans tend to keep our own interests in mind first and foremost. Typically, this trait of humanity is regarded as one of our species’ flaws and is often taught to be something we can suppress in order to be better people, but it is well known that not every person abides by this lesson and that self-centeredness is somewhat ingrained in our subconsciousness. But interestingly, egoism works to defend this trait by stating that we wish to feel better about our surroundings and that we desire to be respected by others for doing good deeds. Just like how we like to look out for ourselves, we also have a natural wish to assist others in woe and egoism states that by helping others in need, we are really helping ourselves feel better by helping and gaining a better societal reputation. This branch of egoism arguably makes the most sense and a connection can be drawn between its philosophy and our psychology, but I feel it is best refuted by the fact that these human traits are not mutually inclusive, they do not necessarily rely upon each other and therefore one can focus on helping others more and less on themselves. Helping others can be advantageous in certain contexts, but many people are just simply willing to do it and gain nothing from it. Our psychology is much more complicated than a war between generosity and self-preservation. I also have the habit of constantly looking back to the golden rule when discussing these ethical topics, and if I were to completely strip all of my contributions to altruistic causes in the past down to their logical reasoning, it really comes down to the fact that I am sympathetic to causes that I could see myself in and would wish for help in that position. Egoism may say that I do this to feel good, which is true, most people enjoy the feeling that comes with helping others, but it feels quite unfair to pin all of our actions on our instincts. We are capable of creating moral imperatives that override our best interests and we can commit to them if not truly advantageous. It would be better for our own personal self to save time or money given to volunteer services and charity, but we have made morals that tell us it is better to give and reach out, and against our own greedy wishes, we can go forth and do good.

The Social Contract Theory

I remember learning about Thomas Hobbes and his theories that impacted many contemporary forms of government and democracy back in high school and since then I have held the stance that I agree with his thought process on the "social contract." The social contract theory gives a simple and make sense example of how societies are formed and why they are kept together. In truth, the reasons for societal construction are quite complex and occur over long periods of time riddled with changes and regressions. However, the point of the theory isn't to streamline history, but rather explain why rules and laws should exist and why we develop moral reasoning for following them. In a governmental stance, we mutually agree to a "contract" of sorts in which we provide conceptual compliance to certain restrictions (laws) and usually give some sort of collective resource (assistance to others, service, taxes, etc.) and in return, others in this agreement also do the same with provide a collection of resources to share amongst those who need it and assures greater safety and overall progress for the society to benefit from. In essence, we give up some inherent freedoms provided by nature in return for collective security, safety and resources. Without this "insurance" of favors and shared manners between people, we would be completely up to the whims of nature and the interests of others. A metaphor I've heard used was that the natural state of man would overall operate similarly to crabs in a bucket, with everyone tearing each other down to prevent even one person from escaping, no teamwork except to bring down others. This concept of a savage lack of law and order is further explored in the prisoner's dilemma where it is apparent that in an isolated situation without regard to rules or law, it is almost always in one's best interest to sabotage others. However, I can see how closely this view of human nature ties with what the author discussed in the prior chapter with egoism and the defense of selfishness. It is stated that people will typically put their own self-interests first, a person’s altruism is measured by how far back they can push back this self-interest, the social contract is designed to prevent complete self-interest and directly interferes with the concept of true egoism. But, while the social contract states that is a natural “reward” for being more altruistic (assuming everyone else is also bound to the agreement) it is an imperfect system built by people who are certainly flawed. Because of this, societies can be built with a slant, a systematic discrimination of sorts, it could be built against a race, a gender, an economic class, or even a philosophy. These “rigged” contracts which are nearly inescapable as long as only one person’s interests are flawed give moral justification to just one reason for leaving a contract. If the societal agreement does not actually give any benefits to certain people, they can protest by not putting anything into it, or even by violating it. This form of protest is known as civil disobedience and the author explained two major examples of it and I enjoyed reading the debate that went behind its justification. If the social contract only takes from a group and never reciprocates the safety, the resources or makes self-interests harder to fulfill, then it is not a social contract that one really “signed.” Society is only as good as what it practices. Overall, the strengths of the social contract theory lie in its simple rationalization of why societies are constructed and how moral reasoning is derived from the rules and customs created by said society and its net positive gains for people who take part in these mutual agreements. Its critical flaw, as noted earlier, is definitely the fact that it has imperfections due to its source, no social contract truly benefits every single person and in particular isolated instances, self-interest trumps altruistic action. Hobbes's philosophy stands surprisingly well compared to others we’ve read about in the last few chapters and I personally can stand by its reasonability.

The Utilitarian Approach

This chapter has been really interesting to read. I have heard the term utilitarianism thrown around before, but I never really knew what it meant. It actually inspired me to look at sources and information outside of the textbook to help me understand it better since I honestly liked its outlook. From what I grasp, utilitarianism is the direct descendant of hedonism, the concept that human life should center around the “pursuit of happiness and pleasure” while minimizing things that would counter this, such as pain and unnecessary suffering. It developed itself beyond justifying self-indulgence by expanding to state that pleasure and pain are more conceptual than physical and that long-term consequences of our actions should be considered to ensure that one's happiness does not in turn increase suffering for another. Utilitarianism seems to be a more modern reconsideration of this early greek school of thought, it views a person’s well-being as being a “utility,” something that is needed and should be maximized when possible. It also seems to serve as a compromise between the interests of self-preservation and societal altruism, a theme that dominated the previous chapters, stating that both are important to consider in decision-making as they both consist of people and all people must work to minimize suffering. 

There seem to be several individual cases that challenge what form utilitarianism should take, like in the case of euthanasia and Sigmund Freud. Freud was suffering in his condition and had no chance of recovering, so he requested that his friend be the one to let him off into final peace. It is clear that death is an undesirable outcome for people as it truly marks off their ability to seek further happiness, but if one’s existence is to be defined as constant agony, why is it better that one be alive to feel it? The author states that the position utilitarians should take is that Freud’s decision on committing to euthanasia is acceptable as it was consented to by both parties and that it ended the unnecessary and knowably terrible pain that Freud was experiencing. No others were harmed in this decision and pain was minimized both in the world as a whole and for an individual. Cannabis legalization proposes a different form of challenge for utilitarian thought both because of its complexity and multi-facets of happiness. However, as stated by the author, a careful measurement of pros and cons can sort out predicaments in nuanced issues such as marijuana legality and use, and the pros are said to outweigh the cons for reasonable use. This conclusion does not fix all possible contradictions, such as the larger amounts of cons for heavy use or certain demographics of people (youth, people prone to schizophrenia, etc.), but it depicts how various decisions in law, policy and morality can be justified by its philosophy.

I personally agree with many of the beliefs put forward by utilitarianism, including its proposal that morality derives from the desire and need to increase happiness for everyone, rather than being divined from above by god or institution, or from the need to constrict us from natural evils. It paints a more optimistic picture and reasonably justifies the pursuit of “good” ethical practices by both individuals and society. Utilitarianism does not come without shortcomings however, for one, happiness, in general, has always been difficult to define, and varies wildly between individuals. This can lead to possible clashes between “general” happiness provided by or for a group of people and a person who might disagree that it pleases them, there is often a divide between personal and collective contentment. One person's desires may also be harmful to others, the full application of utilitarianism brings about the inevitable conflict of interests that comes from the few people that derive pleasure from pain. It can be reasonable to assume that all people are capable of good, but it is naive to assume that everyone at once will adhere to not inflicting pain. There are murderers, sexual predators and societal assailants that seek to harm others, while their practices violate the concept of collective happiness, their personal pleasure runs the risk of balancing the choice, rendering it “morally neutral” to the purely utilitarian mind. This conclusion is inherently incorrect in legal and moral practice, actions that harm others should not be ignored or accepted, so exceptions are needed for certain personal pleasures as well as for overbearing society-wide pleasures as both can end up violating their purposes when abused. Ultimately, this means that utilitarianism serves well as a base for the origin of morals and as an ethical philosophy, but like anything else, suffers when put into absolute use. The pleasures that harm others without need or desire must not be tolerated, and something that improves lives for a majority does not mean that all benefit, there is no way to truly make everyone content.

The Debate Over Utilitarianism

Consequentialist thinking suffers from both a lack of hindsight inference and a lack of knowable foresight. Thinking about the effects of certain actions only leads to a complete disconnection from the past, events can easily be taken out of necessary context when there are strict policies to adhere to. In the case of Act-Utilitarianism, the rule is to increase happiness and that decision is best made sooner rather than later. Because spreading maximal pleasure is the rigid code of conduct, an Act-Utilitarian would be able to decide in isolation from previous details and out of standard moral policy to do the right thing by their beliefs which could include lying and false accusations as mentioned in H. J. McClosky’s theoretical race riot case. This means that the possible future consequences are the only factors driving the decision, however, this is inevitably unreliable as the future cannot be predicted. An Act-Utilitarian would be forced to gamble with how their choice would contrast that of what greater society would want, would the riots improve, or would another factor related to the lie worsen it (such as the actual criminal still being free)? Would the lie have a chance of being found out, and if so, how badly would it hurt others? The factors cannot all be perfectly determined which gives a flimsy basis for any philosophy based on effects from causation. However, consequentialist thinking does have some benefits, when unchained from exact actions, it can allow someone to commit to actions that may violate rules or policies but may result in the greater good. While there is a known risk of consequence and it is inevitable that there is a threat to moral guidelines in this variety of processing, there is also a greater ability for one to act in their best interests, despite what may be dictated.

I still admire the concept of utilitarianism and J. J. C. Smart does a reasonably good job defending his modified form of Rule-Utilitarianism. I would describe it simply as the addition of nuance to the rather broad ideals painted by traditional Utilitarianism, rather than simply focusing on pleasures, what defines them and how they should be integrated into our decision-making process, Smart slows down the “Act” portion of utilitarianism by adding outside values into the equation. Values such as honesty and privacy have a “pleasure” value attached to them that should be considered in any given decision. Because of this, the “Rule” form is also corrected due to the fact that each decision must be decided at the moment, there are no long-term and inevitably limiting rules to corner utilitarianism with “commonsense” morality. Utilitarianism is often called out by opposing exceptions to ethical decisions, like how lying is morally wrong, unless it's not, or how all rights have expected limits or crash into each other. Moral discourse is, has been, and always will be wrought with disagreement due to the fact that many moral values oppose themselves and nobody truly holds the same values as another. Because of this, “Common Moral Consciousness” can also point to the reverse decisions where utilitarianism makes sense again in a majority of situations. This certainly doesn’t fix the philosophy of all its problems, (notably with the peeping tom scenario) but the retreating point on the paradoxical nature of “commonsense morality” is based more on the idea that there will never be a truly viable philosophy that considers all circumstances perfectly and ensures equality and assistance to individuals and balances individual rights and collective needs. Utilitarianism may just be another logical stepping stone in a line of ethical discussions, but it can consider that in its processes and change as needed.

Virtue ethics

Aristotle defined virtue as the characteristics a person follows that benefits both themselves and others. To Aristotle, a virtuous person will keep positive values and utilizes them to strengthen themselves and those around them, also, a balance of how much to lean to either extreme of a characteristic is also quite valuable, as being too much or little of a virtuous trait can have negative repercussions despite good intentions. The author specifically focuses on four primary traits seen as being the most vital to have in order to have a good morality based on the thoughts of various ethical philosophers such as Aristotle and Anscombe; courage, generosity, honesty and loyalty. Courage and generosity are seen as the middles of a spectrum, courage rests between being cowardly and bullheaded while generosity means that they will give what is needed to others, not so much they are giving everything, but providing support to those who would be gracious to receive it. Honesty is perceived more as a switch than a spectrum, one should be honest as much as they can or they are not trustworthy, but lying can present conflicting moral viewpoints and no one is truly capable of pure honesty making the idea of it seem more grayish than how it is presented. Loyalty is tiered in the eyes of most philosophers in this school of thought it seems, it is rational to assume that people give the greatest amount of loyalty to family first, followed by friends and will provide the least to those they don’t know. The main supporting ideals of virtues ethics as explained by the author are that it provides a natural and kind outlook on what drives our ethical policies and that it allows for less ambiguity over how widely we should apply our moral values, instead of equally applying an ethics code to every person and situation, virtue ethics allow for variation based on each person one has a relationship with. For the former reason, many of the prior ethical philosophies lacked the concept that most people prefer natural behavior over calculated moral decisions based purely on societal expectations and, refreshingly, virtue ethics takes this into account by allowing our care for someone else to be decided and maintained by each individual. The latter covers the issues of how broad the previous theories have been, they have the tendency to state that all people should be treated the same way in any kind of situation that occurs because it is morally consistent. Virtue ethics fixes this by allowing deviations to occur based on our real life and varying connections to other people. The only issue that seems to come up in the discussion of virtue ethics being an independent philosophy is that because of its flexibility in usage and its reliance on previous schools of thought, it cannot actually hold up on its own in a contextual vacuum. Virtues can oppose each other in practice such as honesty and kindness (as mentioned by the author) and many situations leave unanswerable options due to the many deviations virtue combinations can produce. I think I agree with the notion that virtue ethics are more of an addition that should be included in contemporary ethical theories, due mostly to its variability, but that it does not qualify as a separate concept from other rulesets like utilitarianism or egoism.

Feminism and Ethics of care

Ethics of care seems to be a relatively straightforward philosophical idea in description, but much messier in practice compared to the various other ethical ideas brought up in previous chapters. The ethics of care essentially places the basis of moral thought on caring for others, similar to altruism, but typically it focuses more on those who we hold the valuable to us and can therefore vary with context in individual situations. This theory adds various caveats to moral policy in order to allow more reasonable contradictions to occur such as caring for family and friends more so than strangers, without purposefully excluding all strangers. Everyone is an individual, because of our many traits, experiences and backgrounds it would be impossible statistically that everyone would think in the same way, but beyond that is the chapters focus on gender and the differences of moral perception between men and women. A quick timeline of moral comparison between women and men through a feminist lens seems to be, men dominated the study of ethics and primarily stated that the two groups were inherently different and had different ways of viewing morality (usually concluding that they were superior in this regard). Early feminists would reject this prenotion stating that differences between the genders were essentially nonexistent are was the product of societal conditioning. But currently, modern feminists state that women do have different moral perceptions than men, but because of that, they can provide different views on previous and future ethical theories. The experiments mentioned do seem to point out that there are varying perceptions on morality primarily based on gender, but not fully because of, which makes sense to me, ethical understanding (like anything else) is not a matter of black and white, there are always more aspects that we cannot think of without others, and no group is totally predetermined to have a particular thought process or moral ideology. While men and women may tend to have diverging opinions on moral basis, men preferring streamline, categorized and often more ambiguous concepts to women focusing on contextual detail and more long-term/widespread effect of moral actions, there is obvious crossover that occurs and there is no correct way to approach ethics that we know of (at least since we cannot even decide where they come from or why we defend them).

The most interesting point so far was raised in this chapter, it highlighted a lesson that I feel the author has been building up for over the last several chapters, that it is nearly impossible to maintain a consistent and justifiable ethical code of conduct. Specifically, ethical philosophies tend to imply universal application is possible if one simply applies themselves to the practice and refines the rules to perfection, but realistically, there is no absolutely perfect rule. It is quite apparent that moral study has been barebones on details, details complicate understanding and so problems are reduced to theoretical sentences that can be answered in only two ways. It has been a building message that the ethics a person carries with them, and how they utilize this moral code is completely dependent on the context and surrounding details of a given situation. Easy philosophical understanding has always been driven by the need to cut down on deviation from the core question so that ideas could be boxed, categorized and labeled for convenience and simple processing, but there is no clean, clinical situation in real life. Ethical thought cannot survive with this level of simplicity, every compact method of reasoning has a thousand instances it can be used and its response differs in every one of them and by every person. Complexity is vital and context cannot be ignored in ethical philosophy, it ruins the streamlined form and forces us to rethink every postulate made in the last several thousand years, but discourse will always rage on when the borders of these arguments are so thin and undefined.

Kant and Respect for Persons

Kant’s explanation of “means and the end” can be dissected like this, the “means” is the utilization something can provide. Objects do tasks, the “means” of a vacuum is to clean by suction, animals provide things like sheep that provide wool and meats, and the means of people are services or talents such as understanding computer repair and giving an IT service. The ends are how the means affect the provider overall. The objects like a vacuum get nothing out of their means, nor could they ever comprehend if they did, animals in Kantian philosophy fall into the same realm, it does not matter if they get something out of their “means” extraction, just that they do so. But for people, Kant states that we have intrinsically valuable traits, such as the ability to comprehend our actions and their consequences or how we set moral values for ourselves even if disadvantageous to us personally which seems to show a level of self-awareness that other living creatures lack in some regard. As such, he believed that humans should always be viewed from their ends rather than their means, a provider of means should give it only of their own volition, and they should get something from the provision, even just moral gratification, should they possess it in the situation. 

Kantian and Utilitarian beliefs seem to clash heavily over the topic of punishment and the embodiment of justice and retribution with some exceptions. Kantians believe that punishment by law is justified as long as the penalty is objectively equivalent to its crime. It follows “an eye for an eye” to a tee in practice, theft of something requires repayment in value or time, or in the case of the death penalty, a murder is effectively suicide in the eyes of Kantian philosophy. Utilitarianism follows the practice of promoting the increase of individual and overall happiness, because of this, punishment for those accused only increases overall suffering and provides nothing of value for whoever is directly affected. So, the utilitarian theory is effectively opposed to practices such as the death penalty due to its inevitable increase in suffering. Kant differs from stating that the death penalty increases overall suffering because the burden of suffering falls on the accused and provides a sense of retribution for those affected directly or by collateral. But utilitarians state that happiness is not truly gained from revenge; it is simply seen as being ethically correct by the public but does not do anything to actually increase our pleasure, it is an empty acceptance of cruelty, just done to those seen as lesser than us. Aside from the disagreement, these philosophies do not necessarily seem bound to these opinions, a Kantian could be opposed to the practice of the death penalty due to its risk of catching innocents, people who deserve no penalty being caught in the legal framework is a serious concern and it violates the practice of equivalent punishment. A utilitarian could also theoretically support the death penalty in isolated circumstances if death was seen as the best alternative for society due to the sheer severity of the accused’s actions. The occasional crossover is seen as the exception and not the standard as the leaders in each of these philosophies carve their respective opinions on the matter, Immanuel promoted the death penalty and Bentham opposed it. 

Personally, I lean towards the utilitarian perspective partially due to my Christian values of basic respect for all and treatment for those who need it most which only works due to my larger worldview on crime in general, that most (if not all) criminals are provoked by external factors as opposed to internal decisions and therefore need a form of human decency and assistance (more than others would) in order to allow them to escape from the vicious cycle, and lead a better life. This view is not particularly popular for a variety of valid reasons (notably the US legal system tends to operate a retributionist legal system rather than a utilitarian one) including the potential cost balance of rehabilitation, the potential of repeat offenders, or perceived matters of fairness. However, the primary philosophical question is less of practical debates such as if holding or helping saves more tax money than the other, or if religion plays a role in legal decisions, but rather, if one holds a particular perspective on why there are deviations from the law in the first place. The author states it best if we see criminals as the victims of external issues, then the utilitarian model of resolve and curing will appeal more, and if one sees a criminal as an agent of free will capable of understanding and committing to cruel actions, then penalty under retribution will seem the best conclusion. These beliefs spiral off into a much larger discussion on our nature and the extent of control we have over our own actions, but like every other topic in this class, this seems to follow the pattern that discussions about ethics will always rely on discourse in other, larger issues that can only practically be resolved by agreeing to disagree.

Are There Absolute Moral Rules?

A philosophical rule that I have tried to follow and promote whenever I can is the idea that one should act and do what they would like to see other people doing or acting for them. This concept has always been taught to me as being called the “golden rule,” but I think it really is just a simplification of Kant’s idea of the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is the name of Immanuel Kant’s justification of absolute moral rules, the idea that there are given ways people should always act, no matter the circumstance, due to the rationality of their permanence. As the author states, he seems to have had quite a liking for pure honesty, lies would always end up being immoral due to their unpredictability and the fact that will violate societal trust in the individual. For the first point, it relates back to the debate over utilitarianism and its reliance on understanding future consequences, it is well acknowledged that there is simply no way that any person can truly predict all of the possible consequences their action would have no matter what, and then be able to process what chance they have of their move being the best over all others. This is especially true with lying, a lie can have many ramifications depending on an innumerable amount of factors ranging from delivery of the lie to how much conviction the liar carries, plus the number of people that become involved with a lie and how they choose to respond quickly compounds the issue beyond comprehension. Because of this mass complication, it could be stated that telling the truth is always better than lying, because its outcomes are occasionally more apparent, and a majority of people would prefer to be told the truth than lied to. As for justification two, most people like getting the truth, it is difficult to defend lying to someone when you would hate to be lied to in turn. It follows the logical pattern that if you want to be treated well, then others do as well. Being a better person and not doing something purposefully bad to someone (such as lying) will convince them to follow and no conflicts are had. If someone violates this policy, rather than breaking this positive cycle, society designates “penalties” to those who act against these ethical policies to incentivize not breaching them. 

The categorical imperative has a logical base, but as for its actual defense, it has weak points as have many of the other theories we have studied. I have personally found that absolutes are almost always wrong, and ethics seem to harbor an underlying mantra that, “moderation is key”. Different beliefs will always have exceptions, attempting to justify following a moral policy to its end has so far never worked. While covered by its rationality, Kant’s vendetta against lying has as many flaws as other ethical philosophies. Anscombe noted that Kant’s broad rules could simply be subdivided further and further with case-by-case exceptions, such as lying to save someone’s life being justifiable, while overall lying is still immoral. This point means that there is no true overall moral belief, one can just justify pounding holes in it as long as they can justify their modification of the imperative with their personal maxim. While this detail can be countered with the unpredictability of lies, even with good intentions, it cannot cover the fact that honesty can have harsh consequences tied to it as well, in many instances, it is apparent and immediate that honesty is less likely to help someone than not to, such as what is pointed out in the “case of the inquiring murderer”. Lying may have a chance of assisting the murderer unexpectedly, but honestly is much more likely to help the killer and the action will seem much more malicious by merit, having the option to impede, but deliberately not taking it, due to their dedication to a mere concept. In the end, it also doesn't matter that much, respectful people in normal situations will try to maintain honesty as best they can, but when in extraordinary issues or due to natural human error, people will lie. It is simply unrealistic to hold the belief that morals should always be followed to a tee, because whether with good intentions or not, some will violate them. There is no way to tell, a liar is only penalized when caught, and if their maxim is pure, then they will be venerated for doing something “wrong”.

The decision to bomb Japan recurs as an example throughout this chapter, but I won't lie, I found it a sometimes confusing comparison. The idea seems to be that a typical absolute moral rule is to minimize casualties in war and that the action of bombing a city with atomic weapons would violate the United State’s previous statement of how killing civilians was barbarous and “not justifiable, even by war”. It could be argued that absolute morals should be followed, and the US should not have bombed the cities due to the presence of civilians there despite its potential to drag out the war and generate a greater number of military casualties. Or it could be stated that absolute moral rules should not be followed due to the fact that the decision was certainly extraordinary and had horrific ramifications no matter the decision. Reasonably, the US was set to win the war and it was a game of chance as to how many more would have to die in order to finish, there were several complicated factors that played into how this could be decided early on such as how the Japanese public or government would respond to various statements or actions, how willing the US military was willing to commit to certain operations, how tired the public would get of fighting, etc. There may have been alternative solutions to war as mentioned by the author, alternate locations with fewer people as a demonstration, demanding the recognition of victory, or getting allied assistance in a land war, but any of these decisions would have had their own possible ramifications, it is harder to debate the atomic bombings than it is to about lying in a particular case due the sheer scale of the decision. Land wars are extremely bloody, victory declarations are a politically hollow statement and they present a weakness that could have allowed the hostile government to continue attacking or massacring surrounding regions and the US, and alternative locations may be less convincing for the public or interpreted as a bluff which may result in more bombs being dropped than in our current decision. However, it is a really good example of how having many absolute morals, such as minimizing civilian deaths and wanting to finish wars as soon as possible, can present conflicts that naturally clash and result in a choice between the two needs to be committed to.

Midterm Paper

QUESTION 1: Subject Review - Over the last several weeks we’ve discussed Cultural Relativism, Subjectivism, Divine Command Theory, Ethical Egoism, and Social Contract Theory.  Briefly summarize and explain each ethical theory.  Please reference the reading materials in your answer.

Cultural relativism is all in all a relatively simple ethical theory that many people likely already practice. It states that all cultures are "relative" or, because every culture has its own unique practices, beliefs, laws and mannerisms, no culture can be regarded as better than another because of a particular quality. All cultures are regarded as similar in their differences and therefore, all cultures and their derivative qualities are to be treated fairly and identically to how you would your own familiar moral concepts. This theory is usually practiced as a simplistic and utilitarian coverage of being accepting of people from around the world and their individual traits. However, while useful, the theory is quite subjective and covers a vast amount of policies and beliefs which leaves it prone to a variety of issues typically revolving around ethical exceptions made for certain practices and of course, the topical "tolerance paradox" which involves necessary exclusions of certain cultures due to the harm they wish to cause to open-minded and tolerant societies. Plus, some cultural practices have no real benefit either physical nor social, an example would be the practice of excision, which “is a permanently disfiguring procedure. It is sometimes called “female circumcision,” but it bears little resemblance to male circumcision. In the West, it is usually referred to as “female genital mutilation (Rachels pg. 26).” These sorts of practice would be exempt from criticism under cultural relativism without some form of exemption or modification made to the theory.

Subjectivism is similar in concept to cultural relativism in the sense that it applies more broadly to the entirety of philosophical studies. Subjectivism in essence, is a moral middle ground guided by the principle that morality derives from nothing of substance. David Hume stated that “morality is a matter of “sentiment” rather than “reason (Rachels pg. 35).” Because practices, beliefs and even manners can differ, are constantly inconsistent and can vary in any imaginable way, there is reason to believe that there is no true morality to follow. Various disciplines of subjectivism have arisen in western philosophy over the last few centuries with the rise of secular contemplation on the origins of morality in society, many of which claim that morals derive themselves from our emotions only or from laws and policies that were built for maintaining society and were elaborated upon and updated over time. Such philosophies on ethical subjectivism include emotivism, nihilism and error theory. These philosophies more often than not nullify the legitimacy behind having personal opinions on ethical subjects due to the fleeting and impossibly complex nature of identifying the most correct moral discipline to promote for a dilemma. However, it can also be said that every opinion, while consisting of emotion held by the deliverer, can be based on defensible reasons and debates can be held over the most “logical” reasoning. Subjectivism can therefore be viewed as more of a tool to help maintain neutrality when being introduced to an ethical discussion, rather than a practice of avoiding personal beliefs.

Divine Command Theory could be described as the predecessor to ethical subjectivism, or at the very least, the leading alternative to the theory. DCT encompasses the belief that moral principle, and to a greater extent, human purpose originates from God. “The basic idea is that God decrees what is right and wrong. Actions that God commands us to do are morally required; actions that God forbids us to do are morally wrong; and all other actions are morally neutral (Rachels pg. 53).” The rules and laws we create and practice should be based on what was ordained from God and that the reason we act and treat each other well is so that we can be closer to God raising fellow man with us. As opposed to the often bleak and humanist outlook of ethical subjectivism, which argues that moral purpose is made and can be broken by us as people, that there is no greater purpose for us than what we decide. DCT puts a face to moral guidance and provides people with a moral base and a purpose in life which is ideal for many and has been for a long time. The issues that lie in DCT center around the connection of morality and religion, DCT is divided by various religious beliefs, contradictions within texts and practices, along with the examples of non-religious ethics being practiced and promoted. It suffers from similar issues that subjectivism has, the belief that morality cannot be properly practiced if stated by a society as opposed to logic or a force beyond us, which could be fairly argued against.

Ethical Egoism could best be described as a major antithesis to the counterclaims of ethical subjectivism and DCT, a philosophical belief, derived from human nature with moral emphasis on preservation of the self. It is perhaps best surmised by Ayn Rand, “The achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose (The Virtue of Selfishness).” While the previous two theories attempt to justify why we operate as an altruistic and collective species rather than simply giving in to the desire to only help ourselves at the expense of others, egoism switches policy by stating that our morals should center around our human instinct to operate as independently and “freely” as possible. The theory more originally centered around the concept of egoism as a psychological study rather than a philosophical one, people tend to act in their own favor when necessary in both nature and within society. Plus, we receive satisfaction and a greater societal reputation when acting in altruistic ways. Some even say that egoism can still integrate with the concept of “commonsense morality,” which is described as the basic rules we follow when interacting with others: be honest, don’t harm unnecessarily, and maintain promises. Ethical egoism can explain how these concepts can still be kept in an individualistic society, it is more advantageous for one to keep these guidelines in mind on a societal level as it puts us in place of better regard and safety. However, egoism also contains a myriad of contradictions and issues. For the psychological point, people have demonstrated that they can surpass their own natural inclinations to stay alive when dangerous situations arise, and we can overcome our own greedy instincts. The idea that we are altruistic to benefit ourselves imply that beneficiality and selflessness are mutually exclusive which is not true, one can both help themselves and others in situations where both parties are negatively affected. As for the argument of egoism and its possible integration with basic morality, the concept that self-interest is the driver of moral action is again incorrect as there are many acts done by individuals that offer no real benefit to them.

Social Contract Theory is a philosophical concept first proposed by one Thomas Hobbes as another possible explanation as to where our morals derive from and why we maintain them. Social contract theory covers the natural want of some self-preservation and the need for an altruistic and secure society, it states that “morality should be understood as the solution to a practical problem that arises for self-interested human beings (Rachels pg. 85).” In philosophical terms, the social contract theory gives a simple and make sense example of how societies are formed and why they are kept together. In reality, societies are constructed due to much more complicated reasons. The point of the theory is more to explain why rules and laws should exist and why we develop moral reasoning for following them instead of describing history. Thomas describes the natural state of man as what nature gives us, absolute freedom over everything and everyone, this conceptual natural state is absolute chaos. There are no rules, laws or morals to guide or discipline us so our lives and interactions are kept short, untrusted and dangerous. No one has any reason to assist each other except for tearing more successful people down, nobody benefits or evolves in this phase. So, to pull us out of this state, we made “contracts” between ourselves. These “social contracts” are also metaphorical and they represent a compromise we make in societies in order to better cooperate and progress as people. We trade in some of our natural freedoms by following laws and provide inputs into our respective society in order to help others in turn for others around us doing the same thing creating a greater collective security and trust allowing better interaction and assistance when we require it. The SCT does a better job explaining why we follow moral guidelines as we do and maintains a subjectiveness necessary when discussing morality on a global scale, but it too has its own debates. Human self-interest can sometimes be more beneficial than acting in collective altruism as demonstrated by the prisoners’ dilemma and stated previously by psychological egoism. Plus, the justification of civil disobedience originates in the fact that these contracts can be built slanted towards certain people due to the fact we are typically born into them and they originate from imperfect morals generated by whoever writes them out in law and practice. However, SCT is not truly defined by its origins, the policies it dictates are driven by the society it governs and it exists only through the rules made by those within the contract. If the contract does not provide benefits to those who have signed it, then they can break the contract as it does not fulfill its promises and work to morph it by passing policy meant to broaden societal protections for them. All in all, a changing SCT creates a net benefit for those within it.

QUESTION 2: Cultural Relativism - We began our semester with a chapter on the challenge of cultural relativism.  Discuss an example in current world events that illustrates this challenge.  Make use of course materials and/or discussion posts to explain cultural relativism’s appeal and shortcomings.

Cultural relativism has a notable appeal due to its relative simplicity. Cultural relativism is an ethical solution to the origin of our moral beliefs by understanding that every person, and therefore groups of people, have their own individual view on moral policy. It could be summarized by the observation, “Different cultures have different moral codes—[it] seems like the key to understanding morality (Rachels pg. 18).” This understanding of cultural differences leads many to the understanding that all cultures and societies should be treated the same as our own due to the fact that they believe in their own system as we do ours. This initial acceptance of others is a noble and just policy to keep, it also trickles down to the culture’s traditions, laws, beliefs and practices as they each play as aspects of what separates each society.

However, the problems behind cultural relativism begin to arise when every society's traditions, laws, beliefs and practices are accepted fully and utterly. While there is no truly correct opinion in moral thought, there are practices that are more or less logical based on how much harm is caused or how much a culture clashes with others. As for how much as society clashes with others, I am referring to an issue commonly referred to as the tolerance paradox. It proposes that there cannot ever be a truly 100% tolerant society, in order to maximize the acceptance of others, it should never accept individuals that are intolerant due to the fact that if they are given a place in a society that allows everyone, they will try to impede the rights and practices of other individuals within it, which ultimately risks the end of the tolerant society. Harm is also another issue, some cultures practice unnecessarily harmful, unbalanced or intolerant beliefs and traditions which can be violatory to individuals both inside and outside the society which tarnish the concept that relativism is infallible.

There is a major ethical conflict brewing in many countries across the world in our contemporary time. Many large religious groups around the world, christians, muslims, hindus, etc. have majoritarily opposition to the provision of various societal rights to homosexuals including marriage. Many countries where these religions are practiced also have large populations of people who are homosexual and wish to have equal societal rights to those who are not homosexual, such as being able to marry. These two groups have clashing views on how they should be handling this dilemma and cultural relativism cannot provide a viable solution to it. Many religious groups state that they cannot allow homosexuals to marry because it is against their long-standing traditions of marriage being defined as being between a man and a woman, of which, cultural relativism must respect because their societies have long been based on this policy. However, many societies that are home to both of these groups have long offered the concept of individual rights and liberties regardless of practice and statuses, and homosexuals are people who reside in these places, they believe that they too deserve the same ability to be recognized as couples, not doing so is in violation of the laws and beliefs of their country. Cultural relativism must also be accepting of homosexuals and their relationships, but one cannot cater to both groups, homosexuals can have either legal recognition in marriage or not.

QUESTION 3:  Ethics in the Media The social contract theory holds that certain individual liberties should be limited to protect the broader interests of society.  Please share your perspectives on the article below by considering what you’ve learned about Social Contract Theory, Ethical Egoism, and other concepts in this class.

Reference article

I will be honest in my statement that I am rather ambivalent to the situation, I could truly be persuaded in either direction with further discussion. I do agree that banning white boards in hallways will not end the issue of racism within MSU. Discrimination is still prevalent in many aspects of society and there needs to be open and sweeping policies made in a systemic fashion to limit its negative impact on both the institution and the greater world. Ending the display of doorway whiteboards is not by any means a great solution to ending racism. However, I can’t say that the banning of public white boards is that big of a deal breaker, indoor and personal usage cannot be taken away and it does limit the convenience of making anonymous and low effort hate speech without impacting college culture as much as the article makes out to be. Colleges already ban a slew of items that I would be much more willing to pick a fight about than hallway whiteboards, so I am not really against their banning if people will try to use them as a way of spreading hate.

Social Contract Theory, its needs and limits- The social contract theory can be connected to this debate, albeit with some significant dilution. A person is typically subscribed to many hypothetical “contracts” at any given time, as people who live on Earth, we are arguably apart of a massive global contract that dictates basic human decency when meeting with others, we try to be understanding and respectful to each other which inevitably costs us the freedom to act however we wish to. For this particular case, a student at MSU also falls under two broad social contracts that are the laws and constitutions of the United States and the state of Michigan. The student follows the rules and pays taxes to these collective entities in turn for protection, welfare and belonging, they also fall under the jurisdiction of the school and pay money along with following their mandates and policy in turn for education, housing and coverage by the university. Obviously, there are expectations that the school has for its students if they chose to go there and live within the institution’s premises, but the student still has natural rights and the ability to disobey these policies if they are unfavorable to them, they choose to be there and pay for it as well.

The social contract theory provides a rational basis as to why the university would be interested in protecting the interests of minority students; they need the protections offered by the school’s “contract” just like the other students there. The disagreement comes from the shift in burden, a small protection is given to minority groups within the contract by banning a common source of targeted hate, but in turn, a small freedom is taken from everyone in order to accommodate for this. There is contention over if the ban actually benefits minority students as those who discriminate can still act in other ways besides writing on boards, or if there is any reason to be upset by a very small aspect of college life being blocked in order to provide a safer environment for many. In this case, I just barely lean to the former argument as I believe the benefit just slightly outweighs the downside, but these types of readjustments are becoming more and more prevalent as our societies try to be both as free and inclusive as possible. It is a delicate balance that is maintained only through these ethical debates by those affected directed.

QUESTION 4: Your Perspectives on Ethics Considering your own perspectives and understanding of the course materials so far, which philosopher or ethical theory strikes you as the most reasonable or practical?  Conversely, which do you find the most troublesome or unrealistic?  Support your arguments with your own examples and by referencing the course materials.

There has been plenty of interesting discussion over various ethical discussions throughout this unit, but the most theory that has stuck to me as the most reasonable has (perhaps unsurprisingly) been the social contract theory postulated by Thomas Hobbes. The social contract theory seems to be the last in a long line of philosophical explanations that are supposed to describe where our baseline morality comes from. While it is certainly not perfect, it stands up better than other proposed alternatives. Besides its relation to the other chapters, the theory itself is both simple, yet also abstract which allows it to be plugged into various scenarios and discussions. In summary, we mutually agree to a "contract" of sorts in which we provide conceptual compliance to certain restrictions (laws/rules) and in contemporary governments, we often give some sort of collective resource (taxes, resources, etc.) and in return, others in this agreement also do the same with provide a collection of resource to share amongst those who need it and assures greater safety and overall progress for the society to benefit from. In essence, we give up some of our “natural” freedoms in return for collective security, safety and resources. This "insurance" of favors and shared manners between people liberates us from being primitive and fearful of each other and instead allows for collaboration and generosity to flourish. It can be best said as“...in society, altruism becomes possible. By releasing us from “the continual fear of violent death,” the social contract frees us to take heed of others (Rachels pg. 87).” The social contract theory can be seen in our governments and in several other aspects of our current society and that is about as practical as a metaphorical theory can be.

As for troublesome, I can quite quickly state Ayn Rand as belonging to this term. Rachels even states quite frankly, “Philosophers don’t pay much attention to the work of Ayn Rand (Rachels pg. 76).” which off the bat gives the impression that her popularity and idealism is much more concentrated in her literary works as promotions for certain socioeconomic beliefs rather than in a worthwhile ethical school of thought. Her contribution to the discussion of ethical egoism consists of her own branch of the philosophy, objectivism, which is well flushed out in her popular works, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged; which is somehow more pronounced in its focus on self-preservation than egoism itself, which has a moral basis in always putting the happiness of oneself first and foremost. I do have a bias towards ethical debates that lean towards promoting altruism and understanding of one another, so I simply hold a distaste towards her constant and absolute view that individualism should be the pinnacle of all operations in ethics, government, economy and beyond. Her beliefs are also further contrasted by all the other chapters we have studied in class thus far, each trying to grasp why we are so generous and cooperative as a species. Each hold the belief that it is life is inevitably better when we operate together, its just the cause of it we struggle with and debate about, but egoism, and to a greater extent Ayn Rand’s belief that altruism is actually destructive to society as a whole, stand out like a sore thumb by trying to point in the opposite direction. I think the worst part is, I don’t truly view it as unrealistic, I fear that people promote these kinds of beliefs and that they could come to fruition, but I believe that it would last, but many people would have so much opportunity taken by the illusion of true, natural freedom.

Final Paper

This second half of the semester we’ve discussed the philosophy of Kant, specifically the Categorical Imperative and his notions on respect for persons, Virtue Ethics, and Care Ethics, especially relating to Feminist Philosophy.  Briefly summarize and explain each ethical theory.  Please reference the reading in your answer.

Immanuel Kant named his justification of absolutist moral ideals, the categorical imperative, the idea that there are certain ways people should always act, no matter the circumstance, due to the rationality of following them due to their overall benefit for all others. Kant seems to have had quite a liking for pure honesty, he viewed lies as always being immoral due to their unpredictability and how telling them violates societal trust in the individual by eroding their overall integrity. He did not believe in this honesty due to religious reasons, but instead went as far as to state that “lying is forbidden by reason itself (Rachels pg 69).” It is well acknowledged that there is simply no way that any person can truly predict all of the possible consequences of their actions and then be able to process what chance they have of their move being the best possible outcome over all others. A lie can have many ramifications depending on an innumerable amount of factors ranging from delivery of the lie to how much conviction the liar carries, plus the number of people that become involved with a lie and how they choose to respond quickly compounds the issue beyond comprehension. Because of this mass complication, Kant argues that telling the truth is always better than lying, because the outcomes of honesty are typically more apparent, and a majority of people would prefer to be told the truth than lied to, after all, it is difficult to defend lying to someone when you would hate to be lied to in turn. It follows the logical pattern that if you want to be treated well, then others do as well. Striving to be a better person by avoiding purposefully harmful actions such as lying (even if the action benefits us personally) will minimize societal distrust towards the individual and limit potential conflict. It is a concept seen in our own society, if someone violates this policy of treating others as we would like to be, rather than breaking this positive cycle, society designates “penalties” to those who act against these ethical policies to incentivize not breaching them. 

To understand Kant’s perspective on respect for persons it is vital to explain his explanation of the means and the end metaphor. It can be dissected like this, the “means” is how one can use something that something else can provide. Objects do tasks, the “means” of a vacuum is to clean by suction, animals provide the products of their bodies, like wool, milk or meats, etc. and the means of people are their services or talents such as repairing vehicles or giving an IT service. The “ends” are how the means affect the provider overall. The objects like a vacuum get nothing out of their means, nor could they ever comprehend if they did, animals in Kantian philosophy fall into the same realm, Immanuel himself stating that “other animals… have value only insofar as they serve human purposes (Rachels pg 75).” With respect for persons, it does not matter if other animals get something out of their “means” extraction, just that they are able to provide them to us. But for people, Kant states that we have intrinsically valuable traits, such as the ability to comprehend our actions and their consequences or how we set moral values for ourselves even if they are disadvantageous to us personally which seems to show a level of self-awareness that other living creatures lack in some regard. As such, he believed that humans should always be viewed from their ends rather than their means, a provider of means should give it only of their own volition, and they should get something from the provision, even just moral gratification, should they possess it in the situation. Because Kant held such high regard for people and their philosophical physique that it drove his belief in the concept of respect for persons, that we defy the means to an end policy of most other things in our world.

The ethics of care seems to be a relatively straightforward philosophical idea in theory, but has a much messier form of practice when compared to the various other ethical ideas popularized before it, due to its much greater utility in practical application. The ethics of care essentially places the basis of moral thought on caring for others, due to this, the theory seems to stem from altruism, however, unlike altruism, care ethics tends to focus more on those we think are valuable to us and can therefore vary with the context in individual situations. Care ethics adds various caveats to moral policy in order to allow more reasonable contradictions to occur such as caring for family and friends more than strangers, without purposefully excluding all strangers. The theory argues that everyone is an individual and because of our many traits, experiences and backgrounds, it is impossible to assume that everyone thinks or acts in the same way, and therefore there should be flexibility in moral policy to properly accommodate our many ethical quirks. Ethics of care is also very much rooted in feminist ideals being built as a new contender for a more female-led philosophy as opposed to the very male-dominated field of ethical studies, which have been typically more unitary and nonvarying in form. As recalled by psychologist Carol Gilligan in her analysis of Kohlberg’s theory, “The “male way of thinking”–the appeal to impersonal principals–abstracts away all the details that give each situation its special flavor (Rachels pg 80).”

Virtue ethics were pioneered by early philosophers such as Aristotle who stated that the characteristics of a person define their moral leanings, one should maintain traits that make them more virtuous, or traits that benefit both themselves and others. To philosophers like Aristotle, a virtuous person has many positive values and utilizes them in their actions to strengthen both themselves and those around them. Many of these traits are balanced between how much to lean to either extreme of a characteristic, as being too much or little of a virtuous trait can have negative repercussions despite good intentions. Typically, there is a specific focus on particular traits being seen as the most vital due to their occurrence across most or all virtuous people, Aristotle honed in on the four traits of courage, generosity, honesty and loyalty. Some philosophers such as Nietzsche were more broad, believing that it is nearly impossible to consider only some traits as more important than others due to the ranging differences of beliefs between all people and that virtuous people just do the best to their ability and appeal to those who seek out their characteristic composition. He is quoted as stating, “How naive it is altogether to say, “Man ought to be such-and-such!” Reality shows us an enchanting wealth of types, the abundance of a lavish play and change of forms– (Rachels pg 86).” This shows that Nietzsche valued the many different characteristics a person can have while still being a good person to others which is important to consider when making moral deliberations in virtue ethics.

Consider a cause or effort you are interested in or impassioned about.  Use Kant’s Categorical Imperative to make an argument in favor of that cause.  If you think the philosophy of Kant has no applicability, explain that position instead.

Privacy issues have been a topic of recent contention and have roots in various issues dating back a long way wrapping itself up in cultural, societal and governmental policies. Privacy can essentially be described as one’s ability to protect their information or selves from public knowledge, it allows for personal secrecy and expression. Many debates have been had over various forms of privacy ranging from speech to behavior to personhood or actions, but of the various offshoots of privacy discourse, digital privacy rights have surged to the forefront of popular discussion. Digital privacy rights have grown increasingly as the information and technology era has progressed and has been especially highlighted in recent times due to the prevalence of social media in our current online landscape. Digital privacy has many caveats that often prevent someone from taking a definitive side in the debate, complete privacy can create secretive and untrustworthy environments online which could have real-life ramifications if no surveillance or regulation could be proposed, but security can often go quite overboard, violating any secrecy, creating other societal issues and washing away the ability for one to safely express themselves. Due to the complexity of deciding how much privacy one should be guaranteed and how a society can fairly and correctly enforce this privacy to people online means that a relative amount of nuance and compromise is required to enter the fray.

The categorical imperative lacks this nuance but can help in dividing up the many portions of the debate and choosing definitive sides in these smaller options. Where the categorical imperative fails is in the overall debate, I would say that privacy is an inherent right for people and if I were to be an absolutist like Kant, I would argue that it should always be respected, if someone wants to be hidden, one must respect that. But this is an unreasonable position to take, especially in the discussion of online privacy, complete privacy is difficult to actually justify due to the many potential hazards it would create, it could cover up any terrible actions capable of being done online like threats of terrorism, harassment, theft of many varieties, etcetera. Complete privacy could also muddle up efforts to help people or prevent online crimes. I personally do not support total privacy in any potential circumstance, it is obvious that some activities and places must be visibly public and that reasonable regulations are necessary to ensure the functionality of the Internet as a whole. As for smaller discussions however, such as if privacy for one's self-identity should be guaranteed, Kantian decisiveness can be quite useful (in this case I would support it in all cases).

Organ transplantation is the process of removing a healthy organ from a donor who may be living or dead and implanting that organ in the body of a patient with organ failure. In the United States alone there are over 100,000 people with some stage of organ failure on the transplant waiting list. “On average 20 people die every day from the lack of available organs for transplant.” Although most people support organ donation, most do not choose to register as organ donors. To address this apparent disconnect, on March 20, 2020, England enacted Max and Kierra’s Law which transitions their system of organ donation from opt-in to opt-out.

An opt-out system of organ donation presumes that, upon death, people would automatically consent to donate their organs to another person unless they had previously stated otherwise. In a presumed consent system, one can still refuse to donate their organs but must explicitly opt-out. This contrasts with the opt-in model whereby one is presumed to refuse the donation of their organs unless they have expressly consented to such a donation by registering as an organ donor. In 1979 Spain became the first country to adopt an opt-out system of organ donation. Spain now has the world’s highest rate of organ donation.

Over the last 40 years, many countries across the EU, Oceania, and South America have moved from requiring expressed consent to presumed consent and have seen significant increases in organ donation. However, some opt-out countries such as Luxembourg and Bulgaria have unusually low rates of organ donation. This has led some to suggest that the general correlation between presumed consent laws and increased donation rates is indicative of a third causal factor and not a case of the law, per se, strongly improving donation rates. According to some such critics, “In the absence of strong evidence, time and effort spent on legislative change misses the opportunity to focus on nonlegislative action, which could have greater impact.” Examples of such non-legislative action include building a more robust procurement system including additional facilities, staff, and medical personnel trained and focused on recognizing potential organ donors.

Even granting evidence that suggests at least modest improvements in donation under presumed consent models, such systems raise questions about how, when, and why people may opt-out. For example, there is substantial disagreement about so-called “first-person consent.” Under first-person consent, families cannot override the patients’ consent (presumed or express.) For example, “In Austria, the rate of donation quadrupled within 8 years of presumed-consent policies being introduced. Under Austrian legislation, organs can be recovered irrespective of relatives' objections.” This is in stark contrast to the situation in other countries. For example, “Even if you are on the Australian Organ Donor Register donation won't proceed without your family's consent.” The difference in these countries' policies makes a substantial difference to some individuals and families. 

Discuss this scenario in terms of concepts learned in our class, namely utilitarianism and Kantian ethics.  What arguments support only donating organs with express family consent? What arguments go against it?  What do you think ought to be the policy within the United States?

The opt-out organ donation system is an interesting idea, I would personally associate it with other policy concepts I have seen popularized outside of the US lately, such as mandatory voting where instead of individuals having to commit to public action by either doing it or not, it changes the action into a necessity as opposed to an option, ensuring that as many people as possible do it. It requires effort to avoid the action or will come with a penalty if neglected which is revolutionary to me despite it simply being a reverse incentive for already existing functions in most governments. There is usually significant support for these kinds of policies and it seems to follow a more utilitarian train of thought. The idea that society should work to increase happiness and comfort by helping one another seems to be the philosophy that would fuel popular support for assumed consent to organ donation. After all, if someone is dead, they will no longer use their body and its functions, if someone else is living, but is suffering or near death that can be prevented by reutilizing the deceased person's organs, it makes sense to save that person by donating the organs. Organ donation directly saves lives from the inevitable loss of another, it is close to a perfect cycle of being able to bring greater happiness even from the somber end all be all that is death. Due to this utilitarian view of organ donation, it would be seen that having to clear external obstacles such as family or legal holdback, prevents a concise opportunity to save a life because of a stigma around death.

I wouldn’t quite say that a Kantian thinker would always be against organ donation, but respect for persons plays a role in even the initial concept of it. Is the use of someone's organs using them as the end to a mean? While they are alive or nonconsenting, sure, it is an easy argument to make in those rather extreme cases, but does this extend into death, should family be considered for the donor’s respect and is default requiring the action mean it is less of a benevolent courtesy and more of a commodification of people? A lot can be debated about the first question, ranging from the idea that a dead person loses their ability to have Kantian respect as they become an object and can be utilized in any way necessary, such as we would view an object. On the other hand, one could say that a person is a person even after death, they lived a life with human consciousness and have the inherent right to keep it after death, no one can use the body, it is sacred in its reserved humanity. As for the second question, it also relies upon ethical interpretation, as one could say that the decision to allow others to use their body for organ donation is strictly theirs and they alone make their own decision in being involved or not, or that respect it tiered, and those close to a person can still get a say in how they should be treated after death. Both of these arguments rely on the latter argument in the first question, this discussion would originate from the belief that a person is still to be respected after death as one who leans towards the former side would have to assume that if a body is no longer morally exempt it can be utilized as necessary. It is also worth noting that there is usually nuance in this discussion. I don’t think many people take extreme sides in this argument, but it serves as a good reference for how one could interpret the downsides of mandatory (individual-decision) organ donation.

My opinion on it likely seeps out of my coverage of the arguments, I tend to side with utilitarian thoughts in ethical discussions and I honestly think it fits well with support of opt-out organ donation. To cover my hypocrisy, I think it's interesting that the article mentions that most people support organ donation, but most do not commit to it and it was a bit offputting to realize that I fall into that category. While I personally believe that organ donation is justified for the depictions of it in its supporting arguments, I am not an organ donor as of now and I am curious as to what that potential “third factor” is that prevents a country from not having many organ donors. It makes sense that if someone is not using something anymore, and someone else could use it, desperately needs it anyway, they should receive it. It is a bit morbid to simply replace the idea of donating used items to a charity with ones organs instead which is likely why there is occasional family resistance to decisions of donating someone's organs without even considering them, but besides the distantly cold and logical reasoning behind why it makes sense, there is a moral and more touching side to the argument. There is something beautiful in the idea that the death of someone, very likely a good person, could very well save and continue the life of someone else, perhaps many lives. I prefer defending the idea from the latter point, it shows the humanist side of the debate and inspires more of the characteristically optimistic charms of utilitarian thought, the pursuit of greater amounts of comfort and satisfaction.

Over the course of the semester you have read and studied key concepts of ethical thinking.  Do you think this class has influenced you in any way?  Ethics is often a required university course.  Should it be?  Please conclude with any final thoughts or comments about the course.

This class has honestly had a pretty large influence on me, more than I initially expected anyways. I originally joined this class on the recommendation of my advisor. I am currently pursuing a Biotechnology degree and while ethics is not technically required, he puts a high value on understanding it due to the many moral complications in the field. I came into this class not really knowing anything about philosophy outside of some basic names and popular concepts, so it was pleasant to read through each chapter of the textbook which focused on small elements. These bits of understanding were built up into a general understanding of some philosophical ideas which really helped me understand and care about the material being taught. Personally, I took a liking to the spirit behind utilitarianism. While I learned about its many shortcomings and modern adaptations, I thought it was interesting to see that flaws seem to run across all fields of philosophical thought and many of these basic theories can’t stand in today's ethical environment. Overall, this class gave me a greater appreciation and understanding of moral thought which I think will be quite helpful for me moving forward.

I am honestly a bit surprised that ethics is not a required course of study for a biotechnology degree at this university. There are social science credits that need to be fulfilled, but ethics is simply one of many possible options, it is also one of the very few classes that deal with practical philosophy. My field seems to demand a reasonable amount of moral education due to the many controversies found within it. Biotech is rife with wild and unique ideas that could explode into many consequences affecting everything from the environment to business, even to society as a whole. Having a basic understanding of how your work affects others seems like it should at least be mandatory. I am glad I took this course and I may follow into more advanced ones, but it is scary to think that I only did it on a recommendation. I honestly think it should be a requirement for my field, and it should be for many others as well. Various studies and the jobs associated with them are becoming more interconnected and are having bigger and bigger ramifications on the world as a whole, having a greater understanding of these connections and the people between them would likely assist in creating a more cohesive and empathetic society that can overcome the several ethical problems we are facing in current times. 

I am glad that I decided to take this class. The material was interesting and I enjoyed seeing the discourse over the many philosophical topics between classmates with their varying perspectives. If there were any changes I would have liked to have done, I would have taken the course in person instead of online. I originally intended to do that, but this class, unfortunately, interfered with a requirement, so I moved this one to the less tangible online form so I could still experience it. I think the deliberation would have made the debate seem more real, it seemed that there was often a consensus in these debates, but people's defenses vary, and hearing out other opinions in the field is always interesting, contentious as well, but interesting all the same.