Assessing Moral Values

Akeysha Patterson Independence University

Everyone has the right to do what they want, as long as they do not harm other people. Is this true or not? In my opinion, this could be true as long as they aren’t breaking any laws. For instance, people have the right to get drunk out of their minds as long as they don’t get behind the wheel of a vehicle or become violent. Some individuals believe this statement and others don’t which is a prime example of moral relativism.

“Moral relativism says that (1) there are no objective normative facts, and (2) what is right or wrong is relative to particular societies or persons, or moral framework or perspectives” (Lau & Chan, 2004 -2016). If a woman that was raped becomes pregnant by her attacker she has the right to decide to terminate the pregnancy or keep the child. Some people believe abortion is not permissible under any circumstances. Ex: rape or becoming pregnant out of wedlock. “But this not relativism, for it is supposed to be an objective fact that abortion is permissible in cases as rape” (Lau & Chan, 2004-2016).

Moral contextualism “is the view that they very same action can be right in one situation (context), but wrong in a different situation”. Is it wrong to put your hands on anyone to cause them harm? Understandable we as humans have the right to defend ourselves if someone is trying to harm us physically. A prime example is that the Ten Commandments “You shall not murder” (Deut. 5:17, NKJV). We as humans must follow this commandment and at times break it in protecting our families and ourselves. Some people say murder isn’t justifiable but in my opinion that is false.

Utilitarianism looks at ethical issues as whether actions are morally right or wrong depending on the effects. “Utilitarianism is an effect to provide an answer to the particular question “What ought a man to do? Its answer is that he ought to act so as to produce the best consequences possible. ” (West, n.d.). There was this incident where a woman I know was working at one of the local Wal-Mart’s here in Rochester, N.Y. and she got into a heated argument with a customer. The customer picked up a glass bottle and hit the employee across the face cutting her. The employee had every right to defend herself in this situation by fighting back, right or wrong? She did not fight back and have someone call the police to handle the situation and until the police got there security had her in their office. The way to have handled the situation differently ought to have been the employee not even arguing with the customer in the first place. If the employee felt that they customer was being rude, disrespectful or out of control she should of walked away and got security. Security could have escorted the customer out of the store. The employee would not have got cut in the face and the customer would not have to now deal with the court system.

References

Lau, J. & Chan, J. (2004-2016). [U05] Relativism & absolutism. Retrieved 27, January 2016 from http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/value/relativism.php

West, H.R., (n.d.). The nature of Utilitarianism. Retrieved 2, February 2016 from http://www.utilitarianism.com/utilitarianism.html