Ethics. Cultural relativism and Divine command theory Essay

EthicsIntroduction       Societies engage divers(prenominal) beliefs that are considered as the radical of their existence. They are the well- foundationeds that g everywheren the behaviour patterns and as far as the community is concerned, they also serve as the fundaments of what is right and what is wrong. In philosophy, there are certain theories that have been formulated to describe extensively on the ethical fairnesss that the community upholds. They justify clean-livingity and immorality. The theories include relativism, utilitarianism, nobleman restraint guess, deontology and rightfulness speculation. This writing result focus on the volt ethic theories by describing them and major solely on one theory that supersedes the others and justifying the reasons why it is commonly considered.Relativism       Cultural relativism is the descriptive view that different groups of hatful or cultures, have different ways of evaluating what is right and what is wrong. In different cultures, even when we would anticipate to agree on some issues of morality, diversity is manifest (Ruth, 2010). Ethical relativism, an serve is right or wrong depending on the moral norms that are pr serveised in a society. Cultural relativism describes the way multitude actually behave, piece of music ethical relativism describes the fact that a society learns from the preceding(prenominal) generation, how to behave, think and feel. A well -known evidence of cultural relativism is the way stack behave around the world. For instance, eating beef is moral in the States while it is immoral in India, or killing new born(p) females is moral in China and India whereas it is immoral in USA. Ethical relativism beseechs that the morals of a society evolve with time and change to fit circumstances. This paper will focus on the five ethic theories by describing them and major solely on one theory that supersedes the others and justifying the reasons why it is commonly considered.       Utilitarianism states that an action at law being vestally right or wrong is dependant only on its consequences. An action is right if the proceeds is outflank and wrong if the outcome is faulty. In this theory, an action is right if it promotes the happiness of the performer of the action and everyone abnormal by it (Boylan, 2009). An action is wrong if it brings the reverse of happiness, that is, pain and sadness. This theory makes it apparent for the right thing to be done from a bad motive. The utilitarianism theory is often associated with John Stuart Mill, a philosopher who stated that actions are right to the horizontal surface that they tend to promote the greatest secure for the greatest number.Divine command theory       Divine command theory views that moral obligation consists in obedience to Gods commands. An act is moral if God commands us to do it and it is immoral if God prohibit s us from doing it (Brown, 2001). Therefore to say that it is good to tell the truth is semantically equivalent to formulation that God commands us to tell the truth. Similarly, to say that it is evil to steal is the same as saying that God prohibits us from stealing. The divine command theory is however wildly improbable for reasons demonstrated by the Euthyphic dilemma. As it states, is an action morally good beca give God commands it or does God command it because it is morally good? By saying that God commands an action because it morally good, threatens the independence of God. It means that the ingenuous ground of morality is outside of God, and He is indebted to adhere to his standard, and then He is not sovereign.The characteristic Christian rejoinder to the Euthyphro Dilemma is to ground goodness in Gods temperament. Therefore, it is Gods nature to do good and He never acts divergent to His nature and also, the ground of morality is not some peripheral ordinary to which God essential observe.       Deontological ethics stick out also be referred to as duty-based ethics. It arbitrates morality by scrutinising the nature of actions and the agents will alternatively of the goals achieved. For deontology, whether a situation is right or wrong depends on the action that resulted in the situation for example, a deontologist would argue that it is wrong to lie to a murderer about the location of a victim. As long as we are following our duties, we are behaving morally and vice versa. In assemble to make the correct moral choices, we mustiness understand what our moral duties are and what correct rules exist to regulate those duties. Deontological theories have been named as formalist due to their central principle lying in the unanimity of an action to some rule or law.       The first philosopher to define deontological principles was Immanuel Rant, who held that goose egg is good deprived of experiences with the exc eption of a good will, which is one that wills to act in concurrence with the moral law and out of respect for that law, earlier than out of natural dispositions. The important thing is whether the soulfulness is expressing good moral virtues or not. The issues whether the intention is right, the correct rule is being followed or whether the consequences of the action are good, are not relevant. A virtue atheist is likely to advise you to act in the same way as a virtuous someone in the given situation. The character of a person is the outcome of his or her character traits which can either be good, bad or somewhere in the middle. Virtues are the admirable character traits while the opposites of virtues.       Ethical relativism indorses right and wrong rooted in an individuals culture and not an individuals beliefs whereas virtue ethics acquaints a persons character as indication of inherent goodness, quite than gauging the results of actions executed by that pe rson. It supports the theory that a bad person can have good actions. The motives of an action regulates the value or goodness of that person in spite of the outcome of the actionEthical relativism discards absolute moral values because of a lack of proof. Peoples behaviour finds provision from where and how they live, unlike the virtue theory where peoples behaviour finds provision from their character traits and goodness.       harmonize to utilitarian theory, the one thing that brands an act morally right or wrong is whether or not the consequences are beneficial. On the other hand, virtue ethics is of the impression that a morally right act in some state calls for a moral choice is what a virtuous person would do in that state. For example, if a person is sick and goes to the infirmary for treatment, the doctor is morally right to kill the patient and give his organs to other patients who need them to survive. This, is in accordance to utilitarian theory. However , this is wrong because it is taking away someones right to live for the motive of devising other people happy.       Even though deontology and utilitarianism are categorised as ethics of conduct, they differ in their ethical theory. Deontology indorses an action based on a moral law or code, while for utilitarianism an action that gives the best consequences or happiness to the action is right. Virtue ethics is categorised as ethics of character and it is focused on how people should be instead of the actions people should perform (Moore, 2009). Virtue ethics should be the ethical need in a persons life. He or she should use levelheadedness abilities to regulate their duties based on virtues and also the universal rules and schemes that guarantee umpire and fairness for everyone. Listening to ones intuition in order to determine the greatest good as well as the virtues that will best serve the society is the best way to ensure this umpire and fairness. A human being should not have right over another persons life because everyone is equal.ReferencesRuth Benedict, Martin T.K 2010.. Patterns of Cultures. The Eagle publishersBoylan, M. (2009). underlying Ethics (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ Pearson.Brown, C. (2001). Ethical Theories Compared. Delaine publishersMoore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2009). minute Thinking (9th ed.). Boston, MA McGraw-Hill.Source document