What is Right? Moral relativism Absolutism Consequentialism

Definitions Moral relativism is the view that what is right or wrong is relative to one’s circumstances – they are not fixed rules. Moral absolutism argues that there are some moral rules that are always true and that these rules apply to everyone. Consequentialism is based on two principles: i) whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the results of that act ii) the more good consequences an act produces, the better or more right that act.

Consider this Is it more, less or equally wrong for a mob to loot a multinational chain store (Gap, HMV, Apple etc) rather than a small, family-run independent shop? What would a moral absolutist say? What points would a relativist raise? What would a consequentialist have to weigh up?

Problems With Absolutism 1.If right and wrong is absolute (= fixed)……who fixed it? 2.If two different cultures have two very different ideas on what is absolutely right, who is right? 3.Does context have no relevance when deciding if something is right or wrong?

Problems With Relativism 1.Can society work if right and wrong are only matters of opinion? 2. ‘Don’t be so open-minded that your brain falls out’ – can it be a good thing when ‘anything goes’ and standards are forgotten?

Consequentialism Recap – the idea that we can only decide if an action is right or wrong depending on its outcome. THE BETTER THE CONSEQUENCES, THE MORE RIGHT IT IS.

Therefore…. It could be seen as good to give sweets to the wailing child demanding them on a crowded bus. Explain how.

Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill: ‘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.’ ‘The greatest happiness of the greatest number’ is the aim.

Who is happy? 1.The child? 2.The passengers? 3.The driver? 4.The parent (s)? TEMPORARILY. What would happen if this action was applied on a daily basis?

HORRIBLE BRATS EVERYWHERE!

Long-term happiness would not follow. WHY? Children would never be satisfied if they knew how to manipulate parents. Parents would resent their children and, indeed, their own weaknesses. Public transport everywhere would be an inferno of infantile screechings.

Therefore… Sometimes, according to consequentialism, someone may need to suffer – albeit perhaps for their own good – for the outcome of an action to produce the most happiness in the long run. Is this fair? Eg a hostage scenario people are in a building rigged with dynamite. The only way to save them is to kill an innocent bystander. Do you? And can we really be sure of bringing about long-term happiness? Should we just ‘live for the moment?’

Thinking It Through 1.I smash a bottle in an alleyway. As a consequence, someone riding a stolen bike gets a double puncture and the bike is recovered. Does that make my action good? 2.I tell a string of lies to my head of house about someone in my year because I wasn’t invited to her party. As a consequence, she is banned from Facebook for a month and her marks improve. Does that make my action good?

CONCLUSIONS Deciding what is right is a very complex process. There are various philosophical approaches to the issue and must be thought through. Socrates argued that the truly wise person will know what is right, do what is good, and therefore be happy.