Student_Paper

B. Which of the theories listed above do you think is the theory with the most acceptable disadvantages? That is to say, which is the most acceptable theory to serve as the basis for a moral order in a society in which you would want to live? Why do you think so? Give reasons which take into consideration both:

There are many different views on what is good and right. As with all philosophical topics, there no consensus on these issues. There are many different views and ideas on what constitutes what is good moral order for society. Due to the lack of consensus that implies that there are problems with each view. There is one view that the author finds acceptable despite it’s faults, that of the theory of justice as fairness. A criticism of the other seven views will show why justice as fairness is the most acceptable theory.

The problem with normative ethical relativism is that it’s own theories works against it. Normative ethical relativism says we cannot judge other cultures ethics and morals due to the fact that each is relative to the other. All ethics and morals of a culture is good for them, we cannot use our own standards to judge against it. There is no universal ethical principle that we can allow world wide. This is basically an ethics of tolerance. However this theory supports cultures that promote intolerance, superiority and force. If intolerance, superiority and force were acceptable and promoted in such a culture, this theory says then that is a good thing, and acceptable.

“If people are raised in a culture where it is thought to be a good thing to be INTOLERANT, then that is what people should be. There have been and there are cultures in which people are raised to believe that they have a superior culture and a right to use and abuse other people. So for that group of people tolerance is not a good thing. Normative ethical relativism cannot be used to promote tolerance. [1]“

This theory also holds that only the majority view on ethics and morality in the culture is the correct and only way. There can be no criticism of this view by the minority, because it is the view of the majority. This theory fails to explain how it is possible for minorities to exert and force the majority to change the rules in order to suit their purposes. If the majority view is always the correct view then it would be wrong and unacceptable to take in the minority view, or to modify the rules for the minority. This theory’s assumption that the view of the majority is always the best view is flawed, because as history has shown us, the view of the majority is not always the best or correct.

“There are no principles that could override or take precedence over the predominant view. Thus there can be no criticism of the moral views held by the majority of people in a given society by any minority. This is so because the minority must always be wrong in virtue of the fact that it is the minority view. The Theory of Normative Ethical Relativism cannot support or explain criticisms of the majority’s views by minorities. Yet there have been such criticisms and many have led to moral reforms. Such reform cannot be accounted for by the theory.[2]”

This theory works on the basis that there are different ethics and morals due to the fact that people of different cultures are raised in different social environments. This would eventually lead to the application of people within the same culture who live in a different social environment. Eventually this could and would be subdivided until it applied to each individual person, since it could be said that no person is raised in the same social environments and conditions. As a result no one could criticism or judge another persons ethics and morals, for whatever that person thinks is right must be right. As much as this sounds like a good thing, it is not. There are obviously incorrect and morally wrong behavior that people have. They may find it acceptable, but it is not. Such as a case of murder. If person was raised to believe murdering is morally right, under this theory we should not question it, least it be a assertion of power over that individual.

“If the theory applies to peoples of different cultures because they are raised in different social environments then it applies as well to any peoples raised apart form other peoples. So it would apply within a culture and within a society wherever there are isolated groups. Indeed the theory eventually supports a subjectivism in which each person raised differently from others must make his or her own moral rules and those rules are equal in value and importance as any other set of rules. In this application of the theory of Normative Ethical Relativism no one has the right to make moral judgments about another person, for each person has the right to have his or her own morals.[3]“

The theory of Egoism states that the society would be better off if everyone pursued actions that provides themselves pleasure, looking out for themselves. The problem with this theory is that, one’s self interest is not always the best thing, nor would it always produce the best interest. The mathematical model of 2 prisoners offered a deal proves this point. Each is told that if they do not confess they serve a 2 year sentence. If one of them confesses and the other doesn’t, the one who confesses gets a 6 month sentence, and the other a 10 year. If both confess, each get 5 years. It is in the self interest of both to confess. This example shows even thought it is in the self interest for both to confess it does not provide the best results.

“From the table, two suspects are individually offered different sentences. A, for example, is offered 5 years in prison if he confesses and is told that if his partner doesn't confess he will be given 6 months in jail and his partner 10 years. If he refuses to confess, then A faces 10 years in prison if his partner does confess, but both would only serve two years in prison if they both do not confess. The dominating pay-off strategy is for both to confess, whilst an agreement between A and B not to confess would result in the better solution for the two; however, the incentive is to squeal, in which case both will serve the non-optimal solution of 5 years each.[4]”

Another problem of egoism is that it cannot settle disputes among people. If everyone were to pursue their own self interests, what will happen when there is a conflict of interest? Egoism has no explanation or solution for this. For example, someone sees it is in their interest to kill their rich uncle in order to inherit his money. However it is in the uncle’s interest to stay alive and enjoy his money. Egoism cannot operate as an ethical system unless it has a solution to moral conflict among people.

“In a typical example, a young person may see his greatest good in murdering his rich uncle to inherit his millions. It is the rich uncle's greatest good to continue enjoying his money, as he sees fit. Accordingly conflict is an inherent problem of ethical egoism, and the model seemingly does not possess a conflict resolution system…Obviously there are situations when two people's greatest goods, their own self-interests, will conflict, and a solution to such dilemmas is a necessary element of any theory attempting to provide an ethical system.[5]”

The theory of egoism itself promotes it’s own self demise. If one wished to live in an egotistical society, then one would not want egoism promoted. It would rather the whole world served them, and they be the only one operating in an egoistical way. It would be against the self interest of the individual to promote egoism. It would also be plain silly to expect the world to be a slave to the interest of one person “The egoist cannot advise others to be egoists because it works against the first egoists interest. No one person can expect the entire world’s population to act in such a way as to produce the most benefit (pleasure) for that one person.[6]“ For all these reasons and more, egoism cannot work as an ethical system.

Utilitarianism like all the other theories sound good at first, however when one starts to think about it’s theories many problems arise. Utilitarianism states that all actions should be committed to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. At first this sounds like a great idea. However, what is the scale and judge of what is good? How do we calculate what is good or better for people and in what span of time? There are just too many questions that could be asked. How do we really know if this action will be good for x amount of people? How much happiness does this action provide for this person? And do we look to provide the greatest amount of happiness in what kind of time span….just this moment? Next year? The year after? 20 years from now, etc?

“It is difficult if not impossible to do the calculations required. How do you measure the happiness (pleasure) produced? Not everyone will be able to measure their happiness. One persons’ maximum happiness may not be the equal of another person’s maximum. Do the calculations range over 1 year, ten years, ? How long?[7]“

For arguments sake, we assume we could calculate happiness and time span. The next problem is how can we constantly calculate these factors and actions? Sometimes an action must be made on the spot within seconds, do we really have time to do these lengthy calculations in our head? How can we know exactly how these actions will affect people, and which people they would affect? People would be overstrained and everything would be done slowly due to all these calculations. There are just too many random varies and factors out there, that just makes this theory unwieldy and impracticable “Do we always know what the outcomes of action are or who is going to be affected? Judging in advance is difficult. Complex and lengthy calculation with too many variables. In many situations we are pressed for time and many are incapable of doing the calculations. [8]“

Utilitarianism supports terrible acts as long as these acts produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Acts are not wrong or good, they are a means to an end, the end being the greatest good for the greatest number of people. An ethical system cannot work if it does not condone certain actions has horrible, such as murder, stealing, lying, etc. Society just cannot function in a way we would like to live, if such actions are found acceptable. ”The theory can support doing horrible, heinous acts, as long as they produce the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people. There is no act that is wrong in and of itself! Murder, lies, rape, child molestation, ..whatever can be the GOOD thing to do![9]”

Natural Law theory states that whatever is natural is good. It is only when we deviate from nature that the bad occurs. This theory raises a number of questions. It has been shown that humans and animals are creatures of conditioning and environment. If that is the case, then how do we know what nature or what is natural? If we are conditioned and our environment creates us to a certain degree then it possible to change the nature of humans, or that humans who were brought up in different environments and conditions have different natures. Therefore it is difficult to explain or show what is natural. Therefore it is hard to explain or justify actions that are good because it is natural.

“Critics of natural law theory say that it is doubtful, however, that the inherent nature of Homo sapiens establishes laws of behavior for human beings in the same way as it may establish laws of behavior for cats, lions, and polar bears. It is especially difficult because so much of human behavior is shaped by the environment, that is, by deliberate and nondeliberate conditioning, training, and education. Human behavior may be solely reliant upon the environment that one is exposed to, which includes social classes, education and upbringing, this opposes the theory.[10]”

What is natural is not always good. Humans have many different traits. Traditional natural law theory has picked out the good traits to promote their theory. However, humans also contain a number of bad traits, are they equally as good as the ‘good’ traits? It could possibly be argued any trait a person grew up with and is accepted by that culture is natural, therefore good. It then can be inferred that cannibalism is good in such a situation. Or one could look at a less extreme example, human natural aggression. Humans, notably males tend to be aggressive. Natural law would then find aggression and aggressive behavior acceptable.

“How do we determine the essential or morally praiseworthy traits of human nature? Traditional natural law theory has picked out very positive traits, such as "the desire to know the truth, to choose the good, and to develop as healthy mature human beings”. But some philosophers, such as Hobbes, have found human beings to be essentially selfish. It is questionable that behavior in accordance with human nature is morally right and behavior not in accord with human nature is morally wrong. For instance, if it turns out that human beings (at least the males) are naturally aggressive, should we infer that war and fighting are morally right?[11]”

Looking at biological nature and the human race, one cannot infer or create moral principles. Nature does not condone rape, adultery, child abuse, etc. These behaviors exist in some species. It is not just possible to assert or create or base moral and ethical principles on biological natural behavior. There are many actions and behavior that takes place naturally and biologically which is not and should not be acceptable in a ethical system. “It is doubtful that one can infer moral principles forbidding adultery, rape, homosexuality, and so forth, either from biological facts about human nature or from facts about the inherent nature of Homo sapiens.[12]”

Kantian categorical imperativism states “Act according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law”. As a result we have perfect duties which we must always respect and carry out. Such as never lying, never harming others, no stealing, no killing, etc. Basic fundamental things that we as humans agree are bad to do to one another. Then there are imperfect duties which we cannot be expected to always do, but to do whenever possible. Kantian categorical imperativism fails to resolve conflicts between two perfect duties as well as between a perfect duty and an imperfect duty. It does not put priorities among the perfect duties, or between imperfect and perfect duties. If an imperfect and a perfect were to conflict there is no resolution between the two. For example, one made a promise to pick up a friend, a perfect duty, but was stopped due to a stranger needing your help badly, an imperfect duty. One would assume a perfect duty over an imperfect, but still the lines are blurred. Not keeping a promise to pick up a friend a saving a life, is a big difference, however under this theory there is no resolution. ”How would you resolve the conflict between the perfect duty, say to keep a promise to pick your friend up with you auto at a certain time, and an imperfect duty, say to stop on the way to pick up your friend in order to give CPR to someone, a stranger, and save that stranger’s life?[13]”

Even more confusing, what would happen if two perfect duties were put on the spot. If one had to tell the truth, even though this truth would hurt someone’s feeling badly, or even force them to commit suicide, what does one do, observe the perfect duty of not lying or of not harming another person? “How would a person resolve a conflict between two perfect duties such as never tell a lie and avoid harming someone? What if telling the truth were to harm someone?[14]"

Lastly this theory allows a lot of loopholes. It allows someone clever enough to play word games. One could weave and twist the maxim and perfect duties to suit their own purposes, and yet be still within reason. “What if someone were to promise to be faithful to his mate and not have sex with another woman. Then that person engages in oral and anal forms of physical interaction leading to orgasm and yet thinks that the promise was not broken because the meaning of “sex” did not include those forms of interaction.[15]” That is an example of such a twisting of words to suit their ends. Clearly and by all reason they have broke their promise. However technically they have not. An ethical system cannot allow such loopholes.

The distributive justice of Rawls states that inequalities in the world are morally acceptable if and only if they improve the position of the worse off. This is a theory that tries to maximize those who are worst off without providing moral justification to immoral acts. In order to achieve this, there are conditions that must be met as shown below.

“1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.

(a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and

(b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

First priority rule: Rawls proposes these principles, along with the requirement that (1) must be satisfied prior to (2), and (2b) must be satisfied prior to (2a). Principle (1) and Principle (2b) may also be thought of as principles of distributive justice: (1) to govern the distribution of liberties, and (2b) the distribution of opportunities.[16]”

However like all theories not everyone is happy, some cry it does not go far enough as well as other crying it goes too far. “Advocates of strict equality argue that inequalities permitted by the Difference Principle are unacceptable even if they do benefit the least advantaged.[17]” These critics claim that distributive justice of Rawls should not go far enough in ensuring that every person have the same level of material good and services. It is correct that the least advantage do benefit from this. However material goods affect people in such a way that it gives them power over others. “That being materially equal is an important expression of the equality of persons. Another common explanation appeals to the power some may have over others, if they are better off materially.[18]” However the principles of the distributive justice have not been broken. Rawls states that as long as the first principle is not violated and the position of the least advantage group is better off with this inequality, then it is morally acceptable. This first principle of unequal liberty keeps in check morally outrageous actions that other theories permit in their loopholes. “The inequalities consistent with the Difference Principle are only permitted so long as they do not result in unequal liberty. So, for instance, power differentials resulting from unequal income are not permitted if they violate the first principle of equal liberty, even if they increase the material position of the least advantaged group.”

The many previous theories discussed above, all talk about bringing people happiness. A good society and moral ethic system is one that seeks and creates happy people. The Utilitarian object to Rawl’s theory on the basic that it does not maximize or consider the happiness of the people living in the society a major or important thing. “The Utilitarian objection to the Difference Principle is that it does not maximize utility. In Utilitarian theories the point of rules of justice is to maximize the happiness of mankind. In Rawls's theory happiness is a subsidiary concept[19]” Rawls takes an Aristotelian view by saying “what we usually mean by happiness, a cheerful state of mind. He means activity in accordance with virtue, and says that people active in accordance with virtue do experience satisfaction, though having that experience is not the aim of their activity.[20]” Happiness will not come necessarily only from the pursuit of it. On the contrary, those who pursuit happiness more often or not are not happy. Happiness can and will arise from experiencing satisfaction with whatever activity they choose to pursues.

Then there are critics who say this theory goes too far, and it ignores those who deserve economic and material benefits due to their actions. People get what they get because of hard work. Those who work harder and have more demanding jobs and skills deserve their economic and material benefits if not more. This principle does not address this, and advocates distributing their deserved benefits to those who don’t deserve it.

“The Difference Principle is also criticized as a primary distributive principle on the grounds that it mostly ignores claims that people deserve certain economic benefits in light of their actions. Advocates of Desert-Based Principles argue that some may deserve a higher level of material goods because of their hard work or contributions even if their unequal rewards do not also function to improve the position of the least advantaged.”

Rawls responds to this criticism by examining and identify what exactly this moral worth is. He states that higher salaries are paid to those who have the ability to take needed and scare jobs is to cover the cost of training, and to encourage learning. It is not to reward in so much as their abilities, but encouragement for others. He seems moral worth is just an ends to emphasize the persons natural talent and skills, which is unnecessarily and thus ignored.

“A person's moral worth does not vary according to how many offer similar skills, or happen to want what he can produce... The premiums earned by scarce natural talents, for example, are to cover the costs of training and to encourage the efforts of learning, as well as to direct ability to where it best furthers the common interest. The distributive shares that result do not correlate with moral worth... The precept which seems intuitively to come closest to rewarding moral desert is that of distribution according to effort, or perhaps better, conscientious effort. Once again, however, it seems clear that the effort a person is willing to make is influenced by his natural abilities and skills and the alternatives open to him... And certainly to the extent that the precept of need is emphasized, moral worth is ignored'[21]”

Despite these criticism and problems of distributive justice, I feel it is best ethical system of the lot. There are no loopholes in it justifies unacceptable moral actions as does utilitarianism, categorical imperative, natural law, caring and normative ethical relativism. Nor does it create an unlivable society which can promote negative actions such as egoism and will to power theories do. This is the most acceptable and workable theory. It creates a civilized society where liberties are respected, and immoral actions discouraged. Some people will be at a disadvantage from this theory, however, not to the point that it would really affect them too much. In the long run it is actually to benefits to those at the top that there is distributive justice. Instead of allowing huge disparities in economics, creating a situation where the least well off are better off will lead to a better overall society. It has been proven and shown, that when given equal opportunities, people can excel. We cannot expect everyone to be a Horaito Alger story. People in general can achieve and go far with help. Therefore it is in the best interest of the society in general, and those at the top to make some sacrifices and help everyone along, in order to benefit everyone in the long run, instead of abandoning and let those who could otherwise flourish and make an impact on society to die off.

The Nietzsche’s theory of will to power states that there are no rules. This philosophy is similar to egoism, however distinctly different. There are born leads, and then there is everyone else. Those who are meant to be leaders will and should exert their power over others and enslave them. When the slaves grow tired, they too can have a will to power, and overthrow their masters and become their own masters. This is the philosophy where the quote what doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger originates from. There are very obvious problems to living in a society following this theory. There are no morals or ethics, everything is acceptable. Since God is dead, everything and anything goes. This is problem because it allows all immoral and evil actions, which is not particularly good to allow in a society. Another problem with this theory is the goals and purposes of the people. Under this theory, there really is no moral good, there is only a will to power. The only thing should people should strive for is to become their own masters and masters over others. “The ethics of power are derived from Nietzsche's belief that the strongest of the human species desire not only to survive, but to gain power over others. The best human instinct is the Will to Power in this ethical system. Watching young boys play, for example, Nietzsche would observe each wanted to lead the group, until a strong leader emerged from within this micro society.[22]” This theory besides advocating dominating others, encourages aggression and use of force in order to meet these ends. The pursuit of power and exerting force is honorable.

“Another mark of the ruling class would be an acceptance of aggression and the use of force. As these rulers express power openly, they view the pursuit of power and the defense of self as honorable. For this reason, Nietzsche speculated that these leaders would not hold a grudge against enemies. In fact, they would not view competitors for power as enemies, but rather as opponents in a great game of human ability. These rulers welcome competition, believing that it builds character and teaches valuable lessons. After a battle, they study their failures and openly admit the strengths of others. Nietzsche wrote that such leaders do not see a right and wrong, only a superior and inferior combatant.[23]”

All of these factors together create a very unstable society that would be filled with violence and conflict, as slaves try to over take their masters, master suppressing their slaves etc. This would not be a society I would like to live in.

The theory of caring is a feminist based theory that the ideals, rules, morals, ethics are created by males, and are dominated by males. This theory seeks to end this domination and believes a female perspective would work better and is what is needed. “Caring is not simply a matter of feeling favorably disposed towards humankind in general, of being concerned about people with whom one has no concrete connection. Real care requires actual encounters with specific individuals; it cannot be accomplished through good intentions alone.[24]” The problems with this theory is that it creates a case by case situation. If there is a case by case situation then it is no longer a ethical system. Due to the fact that one has to change one’s view depending on the system. ”Calls for behavior that is tailored to each individual situation. If this is the case, then there is no true theory of ethical behavior because you are changing your view of what is acceptable and what is not to suit your needs at the time.[25]”

Another problem with this theory is that it does exactly what it claims that male based ethics have done. Feminist theories claim that all these theories are based on male tendencies and experiences. However in the feminist theory they focus on a female centered experiences and tendencies. For an ethnical system to work, it cannot be or start from a specific view, it should be an all encompassing view because ethics involves both males and females.

“Because feminist approaches to ethics focus on how power is used to oppress women in particular, nonfeminist critics of them have complained that these approaches are "female-biased." Ethics, insist these critics, cannot proceed from a specific standpoint--in this case, from the standpoint of women--and still be regarded as an ethics. Indeed, traditional western ethics has proceeded on the assumption that its values and rules apply to all rational persons equally.[26]”

Then there is the criticism that are women really better carers then men. This is a counterproductive notion that works against their own theory. It then states that women should care more and should do so no matter at what cost. It also makes it unreasonable and irritation to assume woman care more, and if they do, it is not reasonable to except them to care more at no matter the cost. “Of these criticisms, the most powerful worries that even if women are better carers than men, it may still be epistemically, ethically, and politically imprudent to associate women with the value of care. To link women with caring is to promote the view that because women can care, they should care no matter the cost to themselves. [27]“

There are problems forcing and coercing one to care when one genuinely doesn’t care. This theory is too unwieldy and expects too much. It is not rationally acceptable nor workable. It may be a good idea, but putting this theory to works depends on too much, and assumes too much.

Therefore as for the reasons stated above, distributive justice is the most workable and most reasonable ethical system. Like all systems it cannot appease everyone, however it does so without putting risking any fundamental moral values. Therefore it is the best system, and a system I would like to live in.