Philosophical issus

Philosophical issues Cultural relativism holds the view that social beliefs and ethics are relative to an individual’s social context. It emphasizes that wrong or right is defined by a given social order and there is no universal standard of morality hence non-existence judgment measure for another society’s customs. On the other hand, ethical subjectivism holds that morality is relative to the individual and that the idea of right or wrong is not universally binding. It is worth to note that both concepts are culture specific which shapes the behavior and moral standards of an individual and are not universal in application (Rachels and James 56-8). Under the scrutiny of minimum conception of morality, Cultural relativism is critical as it serves the better part of group interest while at least capturing individual interests that are culture dependent.
It is important to underline the ethical theory of utilitarianism which defines wrong or right in terms of the outcome of an action among the several alternative choices. In this concept, the aspect of utility emphasizes the right act as the action choice with the minimum bad results. In regard to minimum conception of morality, utilitarianism works outside the limits of individual interests and captures the interest of others. In other words, Utilitarianism seeks to govern conflicts between self-interest and common interests with the goal of optimal happiness of the greatest number(Rachels and James 116-9). For instance government decisions are based on the majority desire which may conflict with individuals with different wishes and such proposals vary across cultural framework of each country. This asserts that utilitarianism subscribe to the minimum conception of morality.
According to Kant, some actions are wrong even if it would amount to more happiness than otherwise. In this moral theory concept, wrong or right consideration of an action is not dependent on consequences but individual obligation to do what is good for humanity. Kant attempts to answer the question of whether an individual’s action respects the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for personal purposes. In this respect Kant emphasizes consideration of other people’s interest in each individual’s action hence subscribing to the minimum conception of morality
Social Contract Theory explains that morality constitute a set rules that govern behavior of people in the society such that rational persons will accept a given code of behavior on condition that others accept such standards as well. In other words, government are given authority to direct behavior and control individual freedom otherwise anarchy would prevail in the society. Decriminalization of private morality is a contractual agreement between people and their government and it represents punishment of breach of the rule which in turn seeks to bring order to the society. Failure by the government to compensate the civilians with the benefits in exchange of their freedom given up to vest authority to the same government breeds discontent and gradual rebellion. This may be as a result of oppression to the people that will compel them to rise against the government in demand of their forfeited freedom. An example of such case was the campaign by Martin Luther King on the racial discrimination of the blacks in USA.
Work cited
Rachels, Stuart, and James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print.