Phil Final Essays

Phil 1104 final essays
How does James Rachels define Cultural Relativism? Based on his definition, what are
three implications for moral theory and practice if cultural relativism is true? Explain how
these implications figure into Rachels’ argument against cultural relativism.
Cultural relativism is the moral theory that states that since each culture has their own
set of moral rules and standards, there is no way to objectively determine if those standards are
morally right or wrong. James Rachels continues on to develop this theory to imply mean that
because you cannot apply any one moral standard from one culture to another, there must not
be any objective truth in morality. Rachels himself argues against cultural relativism, saying that
while the theory has too many implications to be true, it can still teach us how to be sensitive to
the practices of other cultures. Some of the objections and implications to the truth of cultural
relativism that are presented include the the lack of universal moral ethics, the immunity from
criticism, and inability to have reform.
Based on Rachels definition of moral theory, the following arguments are implied. The
first being that there is no universal truth in ethics. This is because we cannot have any
universal moral law that can apply to everyone if every culture has their own incontestable
standards. For instance, a moral law that most consider to be universal is that murder is bad.
However, for peoples like the eskimos, killing babies is considered an act of preservation, as the
baby would not have been able to be supported or strong enough to handle the harsh living
conditions. Therefore, the act of killing an infant would have been seen as morally correct as
you are saving the child from a life of pain or future death.
The theory of cultural relativism also leaves no room for criticism of other cultures.
Meaning that we cannot judge anyone elses moral code. Therefore, if a society's moral code
says something is right or wrong, it cannot be argued. By extension of this, we could no longer
say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior. An example of this could be shown
through a situation in which a country wishes to wage war on another society. Cultural relativism
would say that that is impossible and impractical since no society is better than another
therefore any reason the country has for waging war cannot be because of criticism of their law
or political system. Furthermore, this could mean that we could dictate the morality of our
actions only by the standards of our society.
The final implication of cultural relativism is the inability for reform to take place. This is
because moral reform and progress are a direct result of replacing a way of doing something
with a better way. Reform happens when it’s time for the rules of a society to be changed,
typically for the better and to stay current with the ideas of the times. This is perhaps the most
easy implication to challenge, as change can be seen throughout history in the women’s rights
movement, the push for racial equality and so forth dating back to the beginning of time.
Explain Aristotle’s argument that there must be a Chief Good. Then, explain his
characterization of what that Chief Good must be like. Finally, what is Aristotle’s
This study source was downloaded by 100000831035696 from CourseHero.com on 07-01-2022 00:06:00 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/40877341/PHIL-FINAL-ESSAYS-docx/
conception of Happiness? How does it differ from the way “Happiness” is typically
understood in the modern world?
Aristotle argues that there must always be a Chief Good. The phrase ‘Chief Good’ is first
seen used to mean the happiness brought on by the fulfillment of your own destiny. His
philosophy of happiness was mainly dedicated to the thought process that one must achieve
their personal destiny or teleology, so that they may come to accept the most pure form of
happiness. Aristotle was also a big believer in Nicomachean ethics, meaning that everything we
do is done for a specific reason. Aristotle believed that reason was finding the Chief Good,
which would be a final end to all action.
The Chief Good was said to have several important parts. The first being that it was self
fulfilled. This was important as each person has their own specific goal and will not feel fulfilled if
that goal is achieved through other means. It must be felt to be an achievement. It must also
bring complete fulfillment and be a final end. A final end is reached when you have completed a
task and do not desire to use it to continue to achieve another. An example of this would be
someone saying that they would be happy when they have gotten an 80 on test, and then once
achieving that goal, saying that now they will only be happy once they have received an A in the
class. A final end is when the happiness is so fulfilling, you do not feel the need to look for more.
However, Aristotle also says that there are some guidelines that dictate what is worthy of
being a Chief Good. He says that it must be worthy of pursuit, but only for the sake of itself. It is
the good that every other is aimed at. It must be final and fulfilling, as “happiness is something
final and self sufficient...it is the end of an action”. It is an action where once you have achieved
it, you want for nothing else. In conclusion, Aristotle states that the Chief Good is the ability to
find and pursue personal happiness.
The happiness that aristotle describes is must different that the happiness often
considered in the world today. Today happiness is considered to be brief and in the moment. For
you know that you are happy or content when you are going through that event. Conversely,
Aristotle says that happiness is something that should only be evaluated at the end of your life.
He says that animals can’t be happy, just as a young boy cannot be happy. They are too young
and oblivious to the world and what is to come with the completion of their lives.
According to Bentham, a classical utilitarian, what is fundamentally valuable? Why?

Explain Nozick’s “experience machine” thought experiment. What does it purport to
show about Bentham’s understanding of value and the good life?
Jeremy Bentham, a classic utilitarian, follows the ethical theory that an action is only as
important as its consequences. Utilitarianism is considered to be an ends justify the means
theory, meaning that the action leading up to an end goal is unimportant as long as the end goal
gives the most happiness possibly can. Therefore, Bentham would describe the values of this
principle as pleasure being the only intrinsic good and pain being the only great evil. This means
that all other moral rightness or wrongness are only evaluated by their contributions to the end.
For example, if a typically bad deed such as a lie were lead to a better outcome and the most
possible happiness for everyone in the situation, it would be considered to be morally
permissible.
The experiment machine, a thought experiment first explained by Nozick in his novel,
detailed a machine that let you experience everything you ever desired. However, it would be
only in your mind, all while you were floating unmoving in a tank. This then begged the question
of would the happiness be real or worth it. Nozick argued that nothing “else can matter to us,
other than how our lives feel from the inside”. This argument defended the opinion that to
partake in the experience machine would still be considered valuable as nothing can be as
important as how we feel on the inside. However, it was also argued that the happiness would
not be real or fulfilling as humans want to do things not just experience them. Humans want to
be certain people, which cannot happen if we were to be plugged into a machine where
decisions would be made for that person. And finally that people would be limited to a human
created reality.
All that being said, Bentham would most likely say that the machine has higher chances
of bringing happiness and would be the better option. This could be concluded due to his
subscription to the utilitarian theory that demands that the most good must be produced from an
action. Therefore, the decision would directly oppose that of Aristotle, as Benthan would say
that it doesn’t matter how you reach the happiness, as long as you reach and experience it it will
count.
Imagine the following scenario: you are a nurse in an emergency room with five patients
currently dying. Each of the patients need a different organ. A man walks into the ER
with a concussion, but is otherwise fine; in particular, he has each of the organs needed
to save the five patients. If you kill him and harvest his organs, you could save the five.
Given that the ER is so hectic, you can do this without getting caught. What would Kant’s
Categorical Imperative say you should do? (In answering the question, you should
explain what the CI is).

Immanuel Kant was a philosopher who proposed a new theory in ethics that claimed that
if a person has good will and intentions if they are motivated by duty. Kantian ethics claims that
it is always wrong to use a person as a tool or treat them as merely a means to an end. Kant
also proposed the Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative contained two parts that
showed equivalent expression of moral law. The first part of the categorical imperative is the
humanity formation. The humanity formulation states that no person should use people as tools,
they should be respected for their humanity and existence as autonomous agents. The second
part of the categorical imperative is the universibility formulation. This states that we should not
make exceptions for ourselves when considered what is morally right or wrong.
Therefore, in a situation where I am a nurse in a hospital with 5 patients in need of
organs and 1 healthy patient who could be killed and harvested for their organs, Kantian ethics
would say that all life has intrinsic value and that killing any one person would be wrong. Kant
was not a consequentialist, meaning that his theory does not claim that a person's value is only
dependant on the consequences it gives or its use to other people. This means that it would not
be okay to use him as a tool, but it would be degrading his intrinsic human value. Furthermore,
the implication that it would be okay because the nurse would not get caught also goes against
Kant’s categorical imperative by implying that it would be an exception made for ourself. He
would confirm the wrongness of this action by asking the duty of it, which is killing. Then
applying killing as pure form of the verb and seeing that it is always wrong. We can then draw
the conclusion that since killing is always wrong, we are not morally permitted to kill this man
even if it were to save others.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Phil Final Essays

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Phil Final Essays

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Phil 1104 final essays

According to Bentham, a classical utilitarian, what is fundamentally valuable? Why?

explain what the CI is).

You might also like