Moral Relativism and Utalitarianism

Moral values differ greatly from one culture to the next. It is this diversity that gives our world its charm and allows us the opportunity to consider and evaluate different opinions and methodologies. Typically, cultural factors such as weather conditions, religions, population density, etc. directly influence and help a society adopt certain morals or laws. California’s previous drought imposed severe water restrictions on its citizens, and raised awareness about water conservation. Most of them took action to reduce their water consumption. Vermont, a state with a large amount of rainfall, has citizens who are not as concerned with water conservation. For example, they may play on the “slip and slides” while the water is continuously running to cool themselves off during hot summer days. Both societies, based on their environment, have a different view of water usage. Consider, as an example, the Chinese “One Child per Family Policy” that was implemented from 1979 until 2014 to help control overpopulation in their country. (1) There were fines and pressures to have additional pregnancies aborted, as well as “forced sterilisations” for women who already had one child. The measures taken are undoubtedly extreme and unacceptable for us Americans. After all, we have never experienced similar situations.

If we were to adopt a moral code that was universal, it would be unrealistic. But if we do not share the same cultural circumstances or factors as other societies, is this a reason to judge their societies, or should we accept and understand these differences? Because it’s differences that lead to progress and improvements, it makes sense that we embrace the diversity of our societies. Moral Normative Relativism argues that we should not judge a situation by its outcome. This is not the case if your morals and values are incompatible with those of another country.

It’s fascinating to learn about the different cultures around the globe. People and businesses with similar interests tend to come together to create harmonious communities. We must find the group that shares our business and personal ethical beliefs.

The question then becomes how to make these morally important decisions. Should we use a utilitarian philosophy where all decisions are made on the basis of maximizing happiness for as many people as possible? We could apply “rule-utilitarian” principles, where we still aim to bring happiness to the most people while following common rules like not lying. Or, perhaps we should adopt a “hedonistic” philosophy where the focus is on pleasure and not happiness. The “ideal utilitarian’ approach is another option, whereby additional values are considered, including friendship, pain, good health and beauty. These evaluations are measurable, or perhaps they’re too subjective for a decision that is accurate? There are still issues to be considered, no matter what the utilitarian belief. This method is biased because who can say what happiness or other values are? When a situation may affect several people, who’s happiness should be considered when making a decision? A person must also be honest and willing to sacrifice personal gains and pleasures for the greater cause. Finality, the goal does not justify the effort, as illustrated by utilitarian thinking that would allow a person’s organs be donated to five other people in need in exchange of one life lost. These extremes make it a mistake to base personal and business decisions only on utilitarian standards.