1)     Normative ethical relativism asserts that what is right or wrong varies from individual to individual, group to group and society to society. In this case each individual, group or society has a its own definition of what is right or wrong, so long as it is social acceptable within that group. There is no universally set rule to determine what is wrong or right. There are problems with the theory of normative ethical relativism, which are discussed below:

§       There is a problem with this theory because individuals may be members of two or more groups at the same instance. These groups may have different views of what is wrong and what is right. The problem lies in the dilemma of an individual having to choose which view of right and wrong to choose.  

§       The ethical relativistic theory would deem the act of Jim saving a young lady from being raped intolerant. This is because the rapist belongs to a gang that endorses rape, thus, making rape a good thing in that group. It would then be wrong of Jim to intervene because rape is a good thing (to the gang).

§       The stability of nations would be greatly damaged because of the ethical relativistic theory. This is because anyone who forms a small group could pronounce that the state of New Mexico is a Native American domain and no others group other that Native Americans are allowed. In this case the group mentioned would be right and justified in expelling all persons who are not of Native American heritage

2)     Egoism:  States that people have always or ought to act in such a way as to satisfy their most desired interest. Theory of egoism has three main problems which are listed below:

§       This theory would make it permissible for persons to disregard laws when it is perceive to be in their interest.

§       The scientific method could be substituted with pseudo-scientific theories, which may benefit individuals or groups. This is because a certain group may see it to their interest for them to subject people’s human rights

§       This theory does not take into account ethical conduct, while seemingly suggesting that everything goes as long as an individual is interested in a particular outcome. Thus, making no real distinction between what is just and unjust objectively.

3)     Utilitarianism: States that an act or event is good and right when it benefits the greatest amount of people. In this case a righteous act is one that fully maximizes the greatest utility. There are at least three problems with this theory, which are mentioned below:

§       There is a problem when one considers who is to determine what is meant by happiness? There is a problem in ascertaining which variable in the phrase “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” takes precedence over the other.

§       The second problem is the fact that though a majority may benefit from an act that does not indicate that that act is necessarily ethical.  For example, if group A is enslaving group B and group A is substantially larger than group B then group A is justified in enslaving group B because it brings great happiness to the greatest number.

§       Another problem is the fact that a false notion could create happiness to a great majority of people. In the case of the existence of gods if there are no gods but the belief in them generates happiness to the greatest number people then holding the false belief in gods is justified even if there are no gods.

Categorical imperative: states that good actions are those that are borne out of good intentions and a sense of duty and not necessarily the ends result of particular actions. In this case there is a duty to act in a manner, which an individual would like others to replicate under similar circumstances to all people. There are at least three problems with this theory, which are listed below:

§       The first problem with the theory is the fact that different people hold different views of what is ethical. It may be the case that a pedophile would abuse little boys while thinking it is a good thing for all humans to practice freely.

§       The second problem lies in the fact that the theory only includes rational beings. This means that other members of the animal kingdom and the mentally ill amongst us are not included in the categorical imperative. Are these groups to be treated in a subservient manner?

§       The third problem is the fact that there are frequent conflicts between duties. There could be the case of two perfect duties or a perfect and an imperfect one at odds with each other. For example, if Jim hides in your house because he is being pursued by some thugs and the thugs ask you where Jim was and you told the truth and it resulted in the man’s death. There is an obvious conflict between two perfect duties covered under the Categorical imperative.

Theory of justice-The maxi-min principles: This theory was proposed by John Rawls to function as a good way of promoting distributive justice. In the theory John Rawls proposes the following:

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.

(2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:

(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. (http://12.20.25.5/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Justice_as_Fairness.htm)

There are at least three problems with this theory, which were quoted from Prof. Phillip Pecorino’s online text book and listed below:

§        The theory was developed more to handle problems within society and there are difficulties in applying the principles to individual decision-making involving specific others. (http://12.20.25.5/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Justice_as_Fairness.htm)

§       Libertarians object that the Difference Principle involves unacceptable infringements on liberty. For instance, the Difference Principle may require redistributive taxation to the poor, and Libertarians commonly object that such taxation involves the immoral taking of just holdings. (http://12.20.25.5/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Justice_as_Fairness.htm)

§       Some criticize it for being similar to Utilitarianism in as much as these two principles could permit or demand inequalities and suffering in order to benefit the least well off. (http://12.20.25.5/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Justice_as_Fairness.htm) 

Will to power/ Existentialistic theory: The philosophical method that studies human existence from inside the subject’s experience rather than the outside. It takes a first-person or subjective, approach to the ultimate questions rather than a third-person, or objective, approach (Philosophical Traditions 589). There are at least three problems with the theory of existentialism, which are listed below:

§       The first problem with the theory is the fact that it is highly in favor of individualism, which may eventually lead to irrationality.

§       The second problem with the theory is that humans are social animals and any code of conduct, which proposes to suppress those social tendencies by promoting acute individualism will surely fail.

§       The third problem is that the theory essentially provides no real basis for a coherent code of ethical conduct because everyone is acting out his or her selfish desires.

Caring theory: States that we live in a male dominated and oriented world, which is devised in such a way to promote systems of inflexible codes of conduct. In light of these assumptions feminist proponents of the caring theory seek to transform the world in a manner, which would make it more favorable to females in all respects. There are at least three problems with this theory, which are listed below:

§       The first problem with this theory is the fact that people (particularly men) may reject the caring theory because they cannot relate to it.

§       The second problem with the theory is the case that feelings and emotions are so varied that it would be easy to find some acceptable reasons for breaking a general moral code.

§       The third problem is the fact that the theory somewhat demonizes men, while subtly advocating the suppression of the natural tendencies of men.

After examining the above list of philosophical positions I am more in favor of utilitarianism. This is because the utilitarian theory has the least disadvantages and comes closest to promoting a ‘utopian world’. The utilitarian theory’s greatest proponent was John Stuart Mill who stated:

The creed [utilitarianism] which accepts the greatest happiness principle as the foundation of morals holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. ( Qtd. in Philosophical Traditions 422).

There are somewhat strong criticisms of utilitarianism, which I think are worth mentioning and shall now be discussed. For example, the some proponent’s of the utilitarian theory have stated that there are two kinds of pleasure that lead to happiness. First, there are lower pleasures, which include such things as eating, drinking and sex. Secondly, there are higher pleasures, which include creativity, spiritually and humanitarianism. The higher pleasures are said to possess more virtue than the lower pleasures in the scheme of things.

            The critics of this view argue that it is difficult to know if higher pleasures are better than the lower ones or vice versa. This is because people derive pleasure from things in different degrees whether they are considered lower or higher pleasures. Another objection made about the utilitarian theory is that it can be used to support any behavior as the right thing to do. For example, killing and rape may be considered just if the majority of people in the world gain pleasure from that act.

So far most of the criticisms of utilitarianism are aimed at act-ulitarianism, which states that right actions are those actions, which result in the best possible circumstances and consequences. While rule-utilitarianism, which I strongly support, states that right actions are those that conform to a set of rules that will produce the best results. Richard Brandt effectively criticizes the act-utilitarian theory when he makes the following argument:

It [act-utilitarianism] implies that if you have a boy to mow your lawn and he ahs finished the job and asks for his pay, you should pay him what you promised only if you cannot find better use for your money. ( Qtd. in Philosophical Traditions 425).

            The advantages of utilitarianism and particularly rule-utilitarianism are that it promotes justice and a good basis for ethical order in society. Utilitarianism is not unlike the democratic process, which allows someone to be elected if they get the most votes, which will in turn make the greatest number of people happy (there are exceptions to this rule). Utilitarianism is in accordance with what most people who have freedom of conscience hold to be just as far as humanly possible. For example, we put murderers in jail because they are a danger to the whole society; in this case Unitarianism is at work. Utilitarianism also facilitates the happiness of greatest amount of people possible; it is more of a process of ameliorating humanity’s condition rather than an event.

Though it is said that the utilitarianism overlooks the fact that humans have different opinions of what is pleasurable, it can be observed that human beings have certain common needs, which are always constant. This all means that we can seek to satisfy those needs so as to make all human life happier. Overall, the utilitarian theory can be effective with few modifications so as to make it more realistic in its approach to objective human happiness. The following quote outlines the positive effects that rule-utilitarianism provides:

The principle of rule-utilitarianism is a litmus test only for the morality of moral rules, such as "stealing is wrong" and not a test for particular actions. Adopting a rule against theft clearly has more favorable consequences than unfavorable consequences for everyone. The same is true for moral rules against lying or murdering. Rule- utilitarianism, then, offers a three-tiered method for judging conduct. A particular action, such as stealing my neighbor's lawn furniture, is judged wrong since it violates a moral rule against theft. In turn, the rule against theft is morally binding because adopting this rule produces favorable consequences for everyone.

(http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/ruleutil.htm)